Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 330

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php(10) : runtime-created function(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code on line 1
Left In Lowell » Blog Archive » The SC responds to the Editor

Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!

February 24, 2011

The SC responds to the Editor

by at 7:49 am.

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.

8 Responses to “The SC responds to the Editor”

  1. no more union looting Says:

    “left in Lowell,” indeed!

    I’m to the right of Atilla the Hun (as they say…) but the people on this site make a lot of sense (and they write more intelligently than and don’t censor, like the Sun)…)

    re: I do not see how anyone who will be perceived to be under the influence of Campy or Paul Georges will win

    BINGO. It’s a losing hand, being played (deftly??, ha ha) by losers…


  2. Lynne Says:

    We can disagree on a lot of things, but some things are just common sense.

    Everyone can see which “editorials” are written by Campanini, not just because of style but generally because he fails pretty much any test of logic…

  3. no more union looting Says:

    re: I do not see how anyone who will be perceived to be under the influence of Campy or Paul Georges will win

    Other than Alison Laraba, but she is already in office.

    1 + 0 = 1

    (end math lesson)

  4. Lynne Says:

    But RE your nickname, you do know that the average public worker makes less than their exact private sector counterpart right? You take a pay cut to get educated then become a teacher or police or whatever. Or a government IT guy. It’s the truth. The unions aren’t looting - they’re fighting on behalf of their members. Like your weekends? Thank a union member. Now that’s not to say that a negotiation with a union isn’t a negotiation…it is, and should be treated as such, and the person on the other side of the table needs to be aware of who he or she is advocating for - the taxpayers, first and foremost. But also, needing to be aware that the taxpayers have asked for services like fire protection and police and schools, and we need to attract good people to public jobs to serve the public.

    You couldn’t pay me enough to be a teacher - what a thankless, hard job that I would take a pay cut doing. You can make a lot more in the private sector with a college education than you ever would teaching.

  5. Lynne Says:

    I don’t see Laraba as being under their influence. It so happens her actions coincide with what they want, but I think I know what went on there, and it was more a disagreement between members of the SC about what was happening than anything anyone else is saying.

  6. The Fraud Squad Says:

    You’re right Mimi. November will be the final verdict, but the debate needs to occur and I’m pretty sure it will as candidates begin to enter the fray. Union Lootin’ is going to be in for a bit of a surprise, because it is unions, their friends and their families who vote in municipal elections. That is bad news for Connie, as even one challenger means she’s gone. She barely survived last time. JD is also vulnerable. The boys could have problems, too, though I’m thinking Conway has enough of a cushion to survive if he doesn’t run for Council first. As for the Mayor, they usually see a nice bump in votes by virtue of that title alone. Let’s see if Jim enjoys the same bump or suffers because of it.

    BTW I think Milinazo is uncomfortable over what the SC did, but has to help circle the wagons now because it is time to get a qualified person in there and rehashing the past isn’g going to help the cause.

  7. Maggie Says:

    As I have said before, I am a retired city employee and was on the 1705 Executive Board for a while. Every year and especially the years of contract talks, I did salary surveys with cities of comparable size and with the surrounding towns. I followed that with comparable jobs in the private sector. Lowell City employees came out near the middle or below every time. If you want good people, you have to pay them and provide them with an incentive to take the lower paying job over the private sector. It’s that simple. If you want good employees over political hacks that change very time a new slate is elected, then you need a union. “Union looting” has probably never been involved in the bargaining process. It is long, akes a great deal of time,patience, research and a willingness to compromise.

  8. Kim Says:

    The highly educated union employees are very slightly below their private sector counterparts in pay and the lower educated union employees have actually surpassed their private sector counterparts in Massachusetts. The issue should not be with the union members but instead perhaps we should be looking at who handles the negotiations.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]

If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo


Recent Posts