Left In Lowell

Last week during their regular schedule meeting, the Lowell School Committee once again discussed televising their sub-committee meetings. 

Here is a clip of the 12-minute discussion:

The feasibility study is now in the Superintendent’s hands. I am not sure who in her Administrative office will spearhead this effort.

Listening to the SC felt like déjà-vu all over again.  I am convinced that they all want their meetings viewed by as many people as possible, but I do not understand why they not follow the model established by the City Council.  That is prior to the regular schedule meeting, hold a sub-committee meeting in chambers.  The SC meets twice a month at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday.  They could start their sub-committee meetings at 5:00 p.m.; that would result in 4 hours a month of televised sub-committee meetings.

I do not know if the other options thrown about during their discussion are practical or can be implemented in a timely manner. If within a month we do not see a plan, then this issue is dead for this term. The arrangements of using the Chambers two hours before their regular scheduled meeting will need to be made through the City Manager’s office and there will be a nominal added cost but at least they will have taken the first step.

Good, because the trash bins downtown are overflowing (and buried in snowbanks) and there’s no place to put your pooch’s little poo bags anywhere. Try carrying one of those things an extra block to find a bin on top of which you don’t have to balance the poo bag precariously.

Just sayin’.

Also, the move to flat-fee instead of per-thousand fee for solar panels is all well and good, but the thing holding us back from getting solar panels (on lease for very little up front costs from SunRun) on my otherwise-perfect location is an old roof. We face south, we have height, but an engineer would tell us that the old construction would not be approved for holding up panels. The city should think about doing a program - perhaps even an affordable loan program so that it is self-sustaining - to help the many residents with older houses to prep their roofs for solar, because then I think you’d see more interest. We’re an old city and I suspect most of our roofs are not acceptable for the additional weight of solar panels.

Today’s Lowell Sun has a letter from Mayor Jim Milinazzo answering the barrage of editorials critical of the School Committee as well as the overall favorable coverage the Superintendent has been receiving in the pages of the paper. Mayor Milinazzo, I would assume speaking on behalf of the majority of his colleagues, writes:

Despite the standards of ethics in journalism as they relate to principles of “detachment” and avoidance of partiality when dealing with matters involving personal relationships or friendships with various newsmakers, such principles do not appear to have met here. It would be difficult to argue by any standard that the committee has been treated fairly and respectfully. When the committee issued two brief public statements, in each instance, The Sun’s editors provided readers with only excerpts. By contrast, when counsel for the superintendent issued public statements, they were printed in full. Moreover, when the committee issued its public statements, both the superintendent and her counsel were contacted for comment prior to publication. Again, by contrast, neither the committee nor its counsel (with one minor exception) were ever provided with such an opportunity.

Perhaps the most disturbing instance of disparate treatment has been The Sun’s efforts in perpetuating a position favorable to the superintendent, which it knows to be false: the timing and circumstances surrounding the release of the superintendent’s public message. Unbeknownst, at the time, to committee members, the superintendent and her counsel met with Sun staff members on the morning of Jan. 18, 2011. During that meeting, the superintendent and her counsel relayed her reasons for ending negotiations as later set forth in her “public message.” Despite statements by the superintendent’s counsel to the contrary, committee members learned of the superintendent’s public message after the press — a fact that The Sun has been well aware of throughout the coverage on this story. Such actions stray far from the scrupulous practices of disclosures or recusals readers should expect from their newspaper and its editors.

I thought that perhaps with the passage of time, things would be clearer but that will not happen; the discussion is getting muddied, as a result of the efforts of the Lowell teachers’ union leadership and of the editorial pages of the Lowell Sun. Here is the link to last Saturday’s editorial that prompted the Mayor’s letter.

At times, it read like rants of an angry, bitter man who is not shedding any light or providing any solutions besides telling all of us that the School Committee is “unscrupulous” and “untrustworthy.” And speaking of the Sun, I am not sure why Kendall has not weighed in on this issue but he has not. So I am going to take this silence to mean he does not agree with the editorial position of the paper and does not want to start an internecine battle of the words.

I do believe that one of the problems with this School Committee is not their commitment or work-ethic, they are principled individuals who care but I do agree they are not quick to build consensus; they lack a much needed floor leader.

Part of the problem with this entire controversy is that most of us did not start paying attention until mid-January. Really, how many people follow School Committee meetings besides the few activist parents? Even the Sun, who is eager to tell us what this School Committee is all about, did not have staff, either a reporter or correspondent, covering many of the meetings this past fall. Remember for a few months, they had only one person covering all of Lowell.

Now we have the paper, and to a certain degree the radio as well as special interests trying to shape the narrative of a School Committee that irrationally and without warning to the rest of us came to the conclusion that they had some concerns with the Superintendent performance and attitude. If we really had been paying attention, we would have noticed that little by little trust and communication had become an issue.

The debate on the SCs’ judgment and decisions should take place in the fall, not now; whether they acted in the public’s best interest or not, needs to be argued at election time. I am not sure what is gained by this continued barrage against the School Committee members; maybe this is a part of a campaign to get candidates to come forward to throw the incumbents out. I do not see how anyone who will be perceived to be under the influence of Campy or Paul Georges will win. But for now, if we really do care about the school system, we need to put our immediate efforts into searching and selecting the best available candidate to lead the Lowell School system.

Tonight is the night for the Planning and Development Forum put together by Move Lowell Forward PAC with guest speaker, Assistant City Manager Adam Baacke, at 7pm. You can find the details here!

I have it on very good authority (oh, all right, I’m in the thick of helping to plan it) that there will be a VERY yummy spread, and coffee/tea etc. Come help us eat it all, please!

I just got a press release from the Massachusetts League of Conservation Voters, which in conjunction with the national organization, has released the “grades” of the MA delegation on the environment. Seven of our elected officials in MA scored a perfect 100, so let’s be proud to be from the state which cares about the health and well-being of our environment and our citizens. Can you guess what Senator Brown scored?

No really, guess.

He got a zero. A big fat goose egg.

Here’s the details:

The 2010 Scorecard was released amidst the greatest attack on the EPA’s budget in 30 years and current assaults on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and wildlife protections in Congress.

“We applaud those members of the MA delegation who fought in 2010 to protect public health and the environment and reduce our nation’s dangerous dependence on oil, especially Senator John Kerry and Congressman Ed Markey,” said MLEV’s Executive Director Lora Wondolowski. “The 2010 Scorecard clearly exposes Senator Scott Brown for his willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of the health and well-being of Massachusetts residents.”

The 2010 Scorecard includes 6 Senate and 9 House votes on issues ranging from clean energy to public health protections to wildlife conservation. Given the disastrous impact of the resolution offered by Senator Murkowski (R-AK), LCV double scored the vote on her bill, which would have blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with commonsense steps to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. Additionally, LCV took the unusual step of scoring co-sponsorship of Dirty Air Act legislation in the House. These steps bring the Senate total to 7 and the House total to 10. In MA, 7 House members earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2010, while Senator Brown earned an abysmal 0 percent. The average House score in 2010 for MA was 93 percent, one of the highest averages in the nation, and the average Senate score was 43 percent.

“Unfortunately, the most important votes of 2010 are the ones that didn’t happen: the Senate failed to even begin debate on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill and also failed to respond to the greatest environmental disaster in our nation’s history — the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski. “The 2010 National Environmental Scorecard clearly illustrates that there is much work to be done, and LCV will be there at every step of the way in 2011 and beyond, working to protect the environment and public health while transitioning our nation to a clean energy economy.”

Every MA Representative, with the exception of Delahunt who did not vote, voted for the CLEAR Act to respond to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Senator Brown voted for Senator Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act resolution, while Senator Kerry was a leading voice in the effort to kill the amendment. Disappointingly, the Senate failed to act on oil spill relief legislation, including a bill sponsored by Senator Brown.

And here’s the scores:

Senator John Kerry: 86
Senator Scott Brown: 0

Representative John Olver: 100
Representative Richard Neal: 100
Representative Jim McGovern: 100
Representative Barney Frank: 80
Representative Niki Tsongas: 100
Representative John Tierney: 90
Representative Ed Markey: 100
Representative Mike Capuano: 100
Representative Steve Lynch: 100
Representative Bill Delahunt: 60

Even Lynch, the most conservative Democrat in the delegation, had a 100. And Scott Brown a zero. Let’s remember that going into 2012.

Although City Councilor Rodney Elliott and his colleagues received a reply from City Auditor Sheryl Wright to Elliott’s motion on “snow overtime payment,” the matter is not going to go away based on the Councilor’s reaction that appears in Lyle Moran’s article in today’s Sun, City Auditor: OT payment were legal. The auditor report was in response to the question whether the City had employees who took vacation days and then worked to plow the streets.

CC Elliott is quoted as saying: “This report is sweeping the issue under the carpet. I want to prevent this double-dipping from happening again. This is not a good use of taxpayer money.”

The auditor’s full response is available on the City’s website on the pages that cover the Councilor packets. Here is the link to the pdf file; it begins on page 41 and ends on page 57.

After reviewing all payroll timesheets for the period of December 20, 2010 through January 28, 2011 for these two departments (Wastewater and Water), I find no improper payments. . The employee vacation days were granted as per their respective Union contracts (my emphasis) and approved by their supervisors. ..Snow removal is outside of their regular duties and the tasks were performed on their own free time and therefore they were entitled to overtime pay for those hours worked. Any employee that works plowing on their regularly scheduled shift is not paid overtime, and all other overtime was paid to those employees that work outside of their regular schedules. …I also found that all Snow and Ice overtime was properly authorized by the Snow and Ice Foreman and the Commissioner of Public Works. During snow emergencies it is deemed imperative to utilize all available manpower and requesting those on vacation to come in to work on these emergencies is a long standing practice. (my emphasis). In fact, the AFSCME Unit 1705 contract, covering many DPW and Water Department employees, requires the City to use all available Unit Members prior to calling in contractors.

Tonight’s discussion should be interesting. According to the paper Elliott believes that “the city is violating state statute by allowing workers from enterprise fund to conduct snow-and-ice overtime work” and that “if a city employee comes in to work on one of his vacation days, he should forfeit the vacation, so he is not paid twice.”

In addition to those concerns, there is the issue of how many continuous hours can one employee work and then there is the issue of receiving pay for minimum of four hours of overtime, even if you have worked less than four hours.

All of these conditions and benefits were negotiated by both sides, the City and the union; the contract was approved by the City Council. I know that in the private sector, one is not eligible for overtime unless they worked forty hours. Vacation and Sick Days are not considered working. But again, if this was negotiated and approved by the CC and it has been a “long standing practice,” it is going to be difficult to take it away without giving something in return.

And will changing the snow and ice removal overtime policy result in savings for the City? Will we have cleaner streets in a timely manner?

I think CC Elliott did the right thing last week by asking for an explanation but now that he has received the report, he is aggressively challenging its veracity. I understand stating that you want to change policy but to slam the Auditor, the Manager and the Union, and one individual in particular, I am not sure how productive that will be. I guess we will know by 7:00 p.m. or so.

Greg Page, fellow blogger at The New Englander and Lowell resident, is on his way to Afghanistan. He was deployed today along with the rest of the Massachusetts National Guard’s 26th “Yankee” Brigade.

Greg is a career military officer who has served in Iraq; I think twice. He loves politics and likes to write. I am not if he is allowed to blog; but if he is, I am sure we will hear from him.

I posted this live using my IPad. The experiment did not go as well as I had hoped. But it was a good learning experience. At some point, I could no longer add to the original post, so I used the comment section.

Cliff at Right Side of Lowell was also there and took great minutes. He will post on this tonight or tomorrow. I would think tomorrow since he and Jack are on City Life tomorrow morning. And Lyle Moran from the Sun was there, and after doing interviews at the conclusion of the meeting went back to the office to do his story.

5:51
I am at Lowell School Committee Personnel Sub-Committee meeting . I am sitting next to Cliff and Kim; am waiting for meeting to start at 6:00 pm.

5:57
Room is filling up. Just received agenda.

6:00
Agenda: Status on the posting of position; recruiting; salary range; leadership qualities and blue ribbon committee. Ads placed in newspapers as well as trade magazine. Will also do mailings through SC organization. Deadline for apps is March 16th.

6:26
Present at this meeting are SCs Martin, Conway, Laraba, Doherty, Leary and Mayor Milinazzo.

6:23
Discussed ads; discussed salary range and heard from Rep on City Wide Parent Council, Anita Downes.

Info to SC is being presented by Assistant Superintendent Ann Murphy; she is assisted by HR person, Mike Cassidy.

Meet the newest member of our household. His name is Hector, after the composer (Hector Berlioz). He is a four year old Boston Terrier mix rescue.

Hope you are all having a great Valentine’s Day, regardless of whether you celebrate it, ignore it, or wish it would go away. At least the weather’s cooperating!

I am not sure who has said it or where I read it or where I may have heard it but we will never really know the whole truth regarding the contract negotiations between the Superintendent and the School Committee.

It took me a while to read through the set of six School Committee Executive Session meetings (link here for the pdf copies of the six meetings) but I have come to the conclusion that the turning point in these negotiations was not what occurred in those meetings but what occurred during the January 6th discussion between School Committee representatives, Mayor Jim Milinazzo and City Solicitor Christine O’Connor, and School Superintendent Chris Augusta Scott and her attorney, Michael Gallagher, outside the meeting.

Jen Myers article in today’s Sun recaps what occurred and her opening paragraph indicates why an initial offer was never made: “A three-year contract offer drafted by the School Committee in early November was never presented to Superintendent of Schools Chris Scott or her attorney, Michael Gallagher, because Scott did not agree to the format in which the committee wished to negotiate, according to executive-session minutes released yesterday.” That decision took place at the December 20th meeting.

If you read the minutes up to January 6th, the School Committee was going back and forth on what they wanted to offer the Superintendent and the terms of the contract. But they were in the process of putting together some kind of a proposal (see 12.29.10 minutes): “a three year contract at $170,000 per year; zero, zero increase each year; the new performance evaluation; salary increase tied to the United Teachers of Lowell (UTL) for the third year of the contract; travel allowance of $300 per month; $3,600 per year

That evening the proposal for the three-year contract was rescinded; “the committee began discussing the pros and cons of a one year deal.”

According to the 12.29.10 minutes:

It was discussed that if they do come back with a counter proposal, the Committee could go through the process of a formal vote. The Mayor indicated that no final decisions have been made. To be fair to everyone, members could still change their minds either way.

Mr.Conway stated that he, for one was in the middle aisle, and there was a possibility that someone could change their mind.

Mr. Conway moved: ‘To authorize Mayor James L. Milinazzo and City Solicitor, Christine O’Connor to report to the Superintendent and her attorney that as of yet, there has not been a counter proposal that has gained the support of a majority of its members. APPROVED

Now back to the January 6th meeting:

Ms. Laraba stated that there has been a lot of conversation but no contract has been offered except the initial one.

Ms. Laraba moved: ‘To offer Dr. Chris Scott a successor contract for two years with the same pay and benefits; seconded by Ms. Martin for discussion. On roll call Ms. Laraba had the only affirmative vote. All other members voted in the negative. One yea; six nays. DEFEATED

The Committee goes into recess and the Mayor and the Solicitor go out to meet with Superintendent Scott and her attorney. Once they returned the minutes reflect the following:

The pros and cons of a one year contract were discussed further.

The Mayor and the Solicitor also reported that there was a request that they meet with her Attorney on Monday.

Ms. Martin moved: ‘To authorize the Mayor and the City Solicitor to meet with the Superintendent and her Attorney Michael Gallagher on Monday, January 10, 2011 to continue negotiations; seconded by Mr. Conway. On roll call Ms. Laraba had the only negative vote. All other members voted in the affirmative. Six yeas; one nay. APPROVED

We will never know what was said, heard and understood during the 1 ½ hour discussion between the four of them on January 16th. After that everything fell apart. So now we are searching for a new Superintendent and Dr. Scott is looking for a new place of employment.

What prompted Dr. Scott cancel the January 10th meeting and go to the newspaper a week later. I do not think we heard that decision full explained. And I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that a cabal inside the SC wanted her out to put in an insider; I do believe that there were members who were beginning to be dissatisfied with her performance; and I also believe that the SC’s inability to come up with a consensus in a timely manner is problematic.

That is why, I was baffled that they voted down School Committeewoman Alison Laraba’s motion to appoint an interim Superintendent. Last Monday the majority voted to begin the process of searching for a new Superintendent, with a target date of April 20th. It is going to be very difficult to do. Maybe it would have been better if the SC had slowed things down, appoint an interim and let emotions calm down a bit. We are going to go through this process and if we do not succeed, we then scramble to find an interim?

Right now the majority of the media (mainstream media and new media) is blaming everything on the School Committee members; some more than others. Dr. Scott does get good press and unfortunately some of the SC members never do. They will have to take their arguments directly to their constituents.

I am not sure if the “populist” movement led by the editor of the Sun and the President of the United Teachers of Lowell will result in challengers to the School Committee. I do not have the knowledge nor the tools to measure how much true displeasure there is with this school committee. I know that some people are baffled with the turn of events but angry enough to have a major change in the School Committee? I do not think so.

It would be great to have a number of people emerge as challengers not because they support Dr. Scott but because they believe that they have something to offer our school system. I really think that if a challenger comes on the scene and their sole purpose is to throw out the people who in their estimation did not support Dr. Scott, they will have a difficult time garnering popular support.