Left In Lowell

One of the Sun’s Real Reporters™, Jen Myers, has an interesting piece in the Sun today (the real reason I wanted to peruse the Sun’s horrid front page today, when I wound up distracted by the silly I just posted about below). It begins to paint a very different picture of the very public “battle” between the School Committee and Dr. Chris Scott. In a rather even handed way, it outlines concerns that we all should have when it comes to how our superintendent has been operating.

Given how well I know several of the people involved, I always knew there was more to this story than Campanini wanted to sell us. (I trust that guy about as far as I can throw my Toyota. Or the 15-foot snowbank out in front of my house.)

The two key issues raised by committee members since Scott’s announcement are the use of two literacy consultants at the Murkland School, and the movement of several students out of the Molloy Alternative School program.

At the committee’s Jan. 5 meeting, member Jackie Doherty said she was “blindsided” when she found out that the $1,400-a-day consultants from Teachers for Teachers were being used as part of the underperforming Murkland School’s turnaround plan.

The article mentions that the acceptance of these consultant’s contracts happened in October, and of course this issue has been aired out before, a bit. However:

Doherty and committee member Connie Martin both expressed concern that the consultants were working in the district last fall prior to the School Committee’s vote appropriating funding.

“Working without a contract is illegal,” Martin said. “It is a huge issue.”

Scott’s answer is that they were working at risk, but if Martin is correct, it little matters, and should not have been done. What appears to me is, Scott asked for forgiveness instead of permission, misled (either by accident or deliberately, I couldn’t say) about the rules behind the grants, and what was the School Committee going to do, vote to not give the consultants a contract after they’d been on the job already?

At that meeting, committee member Connie Martin said she felt the $75,000 in grant money could be better spent to hire a full-time staff member, rather than on 48 days of work from the consultants.

48 days compared to a year?? Ug. The fact remains, had there been a proposal ahead of time as to what to do with the grant, the School Committee might have found a way to more efficiently spend that money, including a non-consultant position that could have been for the entire year, instead of using up the grant money on expensive outside consultants. Or they might have gone with Scott’s plan, if it was a good one. But they didn’t get that chance. Since the role of the School Committee is oversight, you have to give them the chance to fill that role. Or else why elect them?

Something new to me, however, is the Molloy School issue (the alternative high school), where there seems to be a dispute about policy changes there that the SC were not made aware of, and that “between June and November, the Molloy’s population fell from 90 students to 55.”

It’s a complicated issue, so (since it’s a Jen Myers article) I recommend you go read more, but it stems from, basically, this:

Former Molloy School guidance counselor Judith Flood said she spoke to several of the Molloy School upperclassmen who were transferred back to LHS and they said they did not want to go.

“They were told there were not going to be any more 11th or 12th graders there anymore,” she said. “Some dropped out because they could not go to a school the size of Lowell High for their own reasons. We have lost a lot of students, we have lost them to the streets.”

There appears to be some students being lost along the way, dropping out because they were shuffled around. That’s concerning, but what’s more concerning is that big policy changes appear to have been made, which at least should have been reported to the SC. Scott claims that there were no big policy changes, but if there weren’t, why did we suddenly see the population of that school reduced so sharply? Again, there was a forgiveness-rather-than-permission atmosphere here, and since the SC has to take the ultimate blame for the dropout rates and for what happens to our students, giving them no chance on oversight when that is their traditional role seems, at best, poor policy.

Then finally, for me, there’s the fact that Scott decided to take her contract dispute to the newspaper where her BFF was sure to give her lots of cover, and to the unions (smacking of the Cox resignation and the city unions). That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and it looks like bullying to me. I think this superintendent may just have a bad track record of working within the confines of her job, and if it were one instance, or two, maybe that’s forgivable…but once it becomes a pattern, I have to wonder if she’s the right fit for Lowell after all.

Ha ha ha. Does this “Note to bloggers” extend to making fun of the local rag (well, its leadership, anyway) for making a crappy newspaper?

Cuz “making fun” and “crappy” and all are opinions. Ok, sure, opinions that are shared by a lot of people in the city, and no one really trusts the editorials there especially, and allegedly, a lot of the reporting appears to be suppressed on certain subjects, but still.

Yeah, thanks for the warning, guys. Maybe you ought to take an, er, leaf out of your own paper once in a while.

At least that piece of slug is good for amusement occasionally, between that and the pets photo page. (No wonder I don’t read that rag.)

Move Lowell Forward PAC, the local municipal PAC of which I am co chair, is putting together an open and free event featuring a guest speaker, Adam Baacke, who is Assistant City Manager of Planning & Development, on February 17th, 7pm. Adam will be talking about Lowell’s development projects, such as the Hamilton Canal District, Tanner Street and downtown, but also the Master Plan (sounds like a villain plot!) and the green and sustainability initiatives. Light refreshments will be served and Adam will of course also take questions.

RSVPs requested, but not required, you can email info@movelowellforward.com.

We’re hosting the event at Market Mill, technically 256 Market St (near where the National Parks Visitor Center is, across from The Brush Art Gallery). Parking is available in the National Historic Visitors lot off Dutton Street, or street parking on Market. When you arrive, you should check out the nearly-finished Appleton Mill complex, which after this spring will be full of artists! It’s really incredible to see those plans come alive, and we’re excited to host this event!

After reading Jen Myer’s story in this morning’s Sun; Cliff’s* extensive and I might add unbiased (IMHO) post on his blog; and Gerry’s account on his blog, of last night’s School Committee meeting, there was one incident/action that came as a surprise and a disappointment. That is School Committee woman Alison Laraba leaving the meeting because she was upset/angry with her colleagues on the School Committee.

Myers’ wrote: “Committee member Alison Laraba made a motion that the committee meet with City Solicitor Christine O’Connor, along with Scott and her attorney, Michael Gallagher, to discuss reopening negotiations.. No other committee member seconded her motion. Its death prompted a loud gasp from the audience. Someone in the balcony then yelled out “time to leave!” and people began filtering out of the chamber. Laraba then packed her belongings, put on her coat and left…She walked into a hallway lined with parents and teachers who cheered and applauded as she walked through.”

This is the same person who launched her candidacy in 2009 partly based on the action of School Committee members who had left the chamber; they left not in anger but more out of lack of interest and respect. Here is the link to my post of September 2, 2009, which features a video clip of Laraba addressing the meeting and criticizing those who had left the chambers. I guess it is acceptable to leave when you are mad but not for any other reasons.

The School Committee did what they said they would do, begin the process to find a new Superintendent and Paul Georges did what he said he would do, bring a group that is in total support of the Superintendent. I am not sure if this group will form the base for a coalition that will try to defeat some or all of the incumbents but if they are, they have a lot of work ahead of them. For one, find interested candidates. Maybe this will be the stimulus to get more people involved, which is always a good thing.

Well whatever they decide to do, they have the paper on their side. I was not sure if I heard correctly this morning when Jim Campanini, the editor of the paper, called in on WCAP’s Warren Shaw show. I thought he used the word “conspiracy” and the November election. But Gerry blogged on the interview and he heard the same thing I did. Campy did state that tomorrow’s The Column will have some additional information. By the way, did anyone ever think that Paul Georges would get such good press in the Sun? Here is the link to the Sun’s video on their website’s front page.

Back to Campi, I am not sure which conspiracy he is talking about so I will wait until tomorrow to try to read between the lines. By the way, Kendall in his column last week does not see “evil scenarios” at play here. He might be right.

Yes, sometimes the inability to form a consensus is just that. They have too many quarterbacks but no wide receivers.

* here is the link to Cliff’s statement he intended to read last night but did not because in his opinion, “things were flowing the wrong way.” At some point in the future we need to discuss what kind of skills we need in our next Superintendent.

I get a ton of junk email. A lot of it is real spam, which elicited a real need to install a good spam filter - and thank goodness, it works pretty well.

Some junk email is, however, from lists I either signed up for or, more often, get put on for being a blogger. In other words, political junk. Which is different from being a political junkEE.

Most of the time I just delete ‘em. It’s usually pretty obvious that it’s a solicitation for donations, or the standard responses to whatever thing is happening in the news. There are only a few pols whose news or newsletters I enjoy getting - like my fave state Senator Jamie Eldridge or Rep. Jen Benson. They also send out updates that are more substantive, actually writing out a nice newsletter on policy, not just spitting out some talking points about X, Y or Z. I also get the releases from the Patrick administration, another set of policies I like to keep on top of.

Then there’s the unsolicited political spam, that might catch my eye, and not in the way the sender would like…like Grace Ross updates. Yes, she’s still sending them out. I got one today, in fact, with the amateurish subject line, “TestPreGovBudget.” (Presumably the email itself was meant to be a test but went out anyway, or else they failed to clear out a previous test email’s subject line after an actual test.)

The email meanders around attacking Gov. Patrick’s proposed budget, for not being progressive enough (though I gotta wonder where she thinks the Gov is going to get the money for her priorities). It has some seriously questionable grammar like (and this is meant to be a direct quote from Ross:

“We have to look at this budget through a practical, un-spun lens. Economic analyses tell us that 70% of our economy is the economic activity and spending of people – mostly the regular people who spend every dollar to get by.” …

Un-spun lenses eh? Hmm. Anyway, she has one valid point buried in there, questioning how we use tax breaks to entice companies (a question, by the way, that is merely parroting someone else who has been out front on this issue - Senator Eldridge, whose district Evergreen Solar is abandoning), but instead of offering solutions, like say, fixing the way we do these tax break deals, or how she’s going to magically come up with thousands of jobs, she gives a lot of platitudes about it. Useful, that.

But really, I could have cared less about the little press release itself, since it has a lot of the same boring verbiage as all the other political junk I get. Except I happened (no idea how I skimmed that far without hitting delete, but there you are) to read down to the text that is “About the Person” - standard fare for press releases where at the end in italics you talk about the author - and it read:

Grace Ross, often referred to as the only “real one”, the “only one who made sense” during her runs for governor, will be to comment on and analyze the Governor’s budget.

The only real one? Really? This arrogant self-reference is the start of your press release bio?? But it gets funnier.

In 2007, working with others, she publicly predicted the crash of the world economy because of the sub-prime lending crisis, and when the Evergreen Solar investment was first announced she called out its likely failure. Her incisive analysis continues to foreshadow policy mistakes and point the way to real solutions. As more details and analysis come out in the following days, she will be available for talk show appearances and interviews.

Anyone want to find her predictive crystal balling over Evergreen or the economy? Love to see it. She must be precognitive! But that last sentence…well. If you had any inkling of this not being all about Grace Ross, toss that idea right off the side of the boat. Anyone else feel like this has a hint of Palinesque self-aggrandizement?

I once respected Grace Ross highly, back in her first run for Gov, as a G-R party member. She had some good things to say and kept the debate honest from the left side of things. But she has continually become more shrill, and less coherent, as time has worn on. Far from appearing like a fabulous public servant who just wants to help, she comes across as an attention seeker who has become increasingly desperate. Heaven forbid that I give that attention to her, but I found this whole email just rife with smugness and condescension. If you want attack a policy, of course you have that right. I just question your wisdom in the manner you chose to do it.

Ms. Ross, I recommend you start taking a page out of Senator Eldridge’s book - read his writings on this subject, like this op-ed “Evergreen Solar: Learning from Our Mistakes,” for example. It is a not-shrill, even-handed critique of a subject near and dear to his heart. Of course, Eldridge was happy when the jobs came to Devons in his district, but now is very unhappy with their short stay there. He of all people has an electoral stake in fixing the problem. He offers solutions, like making sure future tax deals have clawbacks. He’s not shrill, he’s not overwrought. But he is intelligent, thoughtful, and interested in working with everyone and anyone he can to fix it.

The impression I get from your weird little press release is that you have nothing but attacks to offer, and are really most interested in getting your name into the papers or on TV. Or blogs, I guess, if that’s all you can get.

Well, here you go, then. And…maybe this little post will result in getting taken off at least one junk political email list…I can only hope.

As a result of a joint effort between the offices of the City Manager and Lowell Telecommunications Corporation (LTC), the regular schedule meeting of the Conservation Commission will be televised tonight on public access television, Channel 10 at 7:00 p.m.

This Commission joins, the Licensing Commission, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board as well as the City Council and School Committee to have their meeting televised.

Tonight’s Agenda includes the Boot Hydropower Notice of Intent.

Previously the Conservation Commission held their meeting in a conference room at DPD. I am not sure if this is a permanent change but the more public meetings are held in public, the better off we all are.

Below is the appearance of “the man who the CC would not let speak a their meeting” speaking at a CC sub-committee meeting. (For background information, please check out my post below; Gerry’s post, Dick’s post and the Sun editorial).

If you are interested in gaining a greater understanding of the foreclosure issue, penalty fees and revenue sources, the video of this one-hour sub-committee meeting is available on blip.tv courtesy of LTC.

This clip is a little bit over 4 minutes long:

With the release of a public statement by the Lowell School Committee regarding the negotiations with Superintendent Dr. Chris Augusta Scott, I really think it is time we move on and start focusing on who will be the interim superintendent and the upcoming budget.

I do not know what happened or did not happen but if she really wanted to stay, she would have figured out a way of continuing the negotiations; and if the majority of the SC wanted her to stay, they would have found a way to come up with a consensus and make a counteroffer in early January.

Unfortunately, the Sun is partied to the interpretation of events, so we may never know what the truth is; maybe this is one of those situations with multiple realities.

Here is a link to a pdf copy of the statement that the School Committee released yesterday.

These discussions began on November 15, 2010 when the Committee, pursuant to the terms of the Superintendent’s contract, timely opted to enter into contract negotiations. Since then, the Committee had undertaken such efforts in earnest and in good faith, meeting three times during December and into the beginning of January. Such efforts concluded when the Superintendent canceled a planned negotiation session for January 19th and further, ended negotiations for a successor contract altogether.

Despite repeated reports in The Sun that the Superintendent and her attorney were “informed… that the School Committee has decided to part ways with the superintendent,” such was never the case. Nor, as set forth in the Public Message of Dr. Chris Augusta Scott, was the Superintendent ever “informed that a majority of the Committee could not reach agreement on any contract offer that would allow us to enter into negotiations.

As they sometimes perception is reality. Of course, that does not include the misinformation that is being passed around. For one, accusing the School Committee of dragging their feet. They voted on November 3rd to begin discussions. So during the next two months, they met three times. Given the fact that it was the holiday season, I think three times is a good number.

I look forward to the naming of the interim superintendent.

Saturday’s editorial in the Lowell Sun is really one for the ages. In case you have not notice, we have a municipal election coming up and those City Councilor members who are friendly to the powers that be at the paper are getting good coverage, and the rest of them, well don’t expect the facts to get in the way of this agenda.

In case you have not read the editorial, here is the link.

The writer of this editorial accuses the majority of the City Councilors from preventing a citizen and taxpayer from speaking in front of the City Council. A taxpayer that is going to save the City $70 million dollars and these five do not even want to hear him.

I am convinced that this editorial is part of the Sun’s campaign to promote certain City Councilors and keep kicking around the rest of them. In this case, promote City Councilor Bud Caulfield and kick around City Councilor Bill Martin. BTW, CC Caulfield has been mentioned in 55 articles that have appeared in the Lowell Sun this past year and CC Martin, 14 times. Yes, that is one of the ways, I measure promote and demote.

Back to the preventing a citizen from speaking and helping the City save money. According to the discussions that took place earlier this month on the City Council floor, this person has met with the City Manager and his staff. Imagine that, he offered a plan to make all kinds of money and CM B. Lynch and CFO T. Moses, said, “uh, no!”

But most importantly, this particular individual did have an opportunity to address the City Council. It was on November 30th, less than 2 months ago at the Housing Sub-Committee meeting, chaired by CC B. Martin. Here is a video clip of the report that the Councilor gave later on that night to the full City Council. Please note that CC Martin mentions that the entire City Council was present at the Sub-Committee meeting and please note the vote on the Sub-Committee’s recommendation: 9 in favor; 0 against.

The issue of foreclosed properties presenting a source of revenue is complicated and I am grateful that Dick explained it to us on his blog today. The laws are complicated and I admit I do not understand all of it. But we do have City Councilor members and individual in the administration who do. BTW, Dick was also in attendance at that November 30th meeting and gave his opinion to the City Councilors. Does anyone really believe that the majority of the City Councilor does not want to seek new revenue streams? Does anyone really believe that they are not willing to listen to proposals that will benefit the City? But how many times do they have to listen to the same proposal?

Gerry also posted on this issue on his blog. In the comment section, Jack Mitchell has a link to the clip featuring CC Martin’s comments on the motion, discussion and vote during the Councilor’s appearance on City Life.

Senator Eileen Donoghue has been named chair of the state Senate’s Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development. Pretty cool, and it bodes well for the district, especially Lowell.

She also is serving on the following:

Donoghue will also serve as vice chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, and a member of the committees on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies; Telecommunications, Utilities & Energy; and Community Development & Small Business.

All have some obvious advantages, but she will have the opportunity to keep UML and MCC in mind as well as the rest of our state public higher ed; affect green energy policy and emerging tech (like nano?); and do some good on the economic front. All good areas of policy for Lowell. I look forward to seeing what Donoghue does on these issues!