The Lowell Sun’s Crooked Frame
It should be clear to just about anyone, why I refer to the Lowell Sun as the Blog of Record.
THE ALLEGATION from a City Hall janitor that Mayor Patrick Murphy broke the glass on a City Hall door in anger after Tuesday’s meeting, which Murphy denies, prompted some council observers to wonder what Murphy could have been upset about.
Right away, the anonymous blogger that penned this bit, moves quickly past Murphy’s denial and drives on under the assumption that the janitor’s word is gold. Two things bolster this asumption. First, the Mayor, himself, has crafted a public persona as an edgey outsider. He has made bold moves, big moves. In reaction to the Mayor, his detractors have conjured a persona of him as a ‘hothead.’ This persona is not too far from reality. Though I know Murphy has the martial discipline required, I notice in his body language, a posture of one prepared to fight, in the moment. Anyone that watches hockey knows of what I mean. We see skaters beginning to square off and we’ll snort, “Oh. The gloves are coming off.” Mayor Murphy, when challenged, will find an engaged, cutting eye. One that promises more than just a trifle, should the challenge cross Murphy’s line.
But what stands out most in the farcical tale is this:
Councilors Ed Kennedy, Rita Mercier and Elliott all told The Sun that a city janitor asked them as they were exiting City Hall why Murphy was so upset.
The councilors said nothing happened that they were aware of, and asked the janitor why he was inquiring.
“He said ‘The mayor stormed out of City Hall and slammed the door and the glass broke,’” Kennedy said.
Elliott and Mercier confirmed that account.
At almost every City Council meeting I have attended, C.Elliott makes a hasty exit. It’s routine for him to be packing up his papers during the last motion, practically on his feet, if not standing, when the gavel falls for adjournment. How is it that, on this odd night, the entire ‘Axis of Chatty’ are ‘present’ to support Lyle Moran’s investigative high water mark.
The mayor did argue with Councilor Rodney Elliott both during and after the meeting.
There was a long buildup to the verbal scuffle. Elliott was frustrated he was not getting answers to some of his questions from Lynch concerning a $2 million loan order for new parking kiosks.
“I don’t want to go to the public hearing next week and hear ‘I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know,’” Elliott said.
Before Elliott could ask another question, Lynch interrupted.
“Councilor, I’ve never come in to a public hearing and said, ‘I don’t know,’” Lynch said.
Elliott objected to the manager jumping in and asked the mayor to intervene.
“He is answering the question,” Murphy said.
(bold mine)
Though the revelation is subtle, the Blog of Record acknowledges that C.Elliott is more interested in announcing his dirty laundry list than getting answers.
When startled by the CM’s retort, C.Elliott slipped into one of his favorite verses from the Book of Hackney, ‘The Mayor is unfair.’
Elliott replied: “You have no problem gaveling me down, so I think you should do the same to the manager.”
Murphy let Elliott finish his question, but after the meeting quickly approached Elliott to discuss the incident.
The mayor described their interaction this way in a statement:
“Afterwards, I suggested to Councilor Elliott that if he asks a question of the manager, he should also respectfully wait for a response,” Murphy said. “The councilor disagreed and I left it at that.”
Elliott agreed with Murphy’s description of the subject matter discussed, but said it was a testy exchange in which he asked for fairness in the application of Roberts’ Rules of Order.
“(Murphy) came right down toward me and it looked like he wanted to start trouble,” Elliott said. “He also looked very angry when he left because he was upset I was challenging the manager, who he tries to protect.”
I really don’t see C.Elliott and how he approaches city governance as “.. challenging the manager .. .” Obstensibly, that is what we see C.Kennedy do. Kennedy is, at a minimum, wily enough to not get caught looking … (Fill In The Blank).
As for C.Elliott’s closing remark, I’ve talked enough with Murphy to know that his mind is bent on making Lowell a better city. One that accounts for 106,000+ Lowellians. Murphy did not embark on his path to ‘protect’ the manager. If Murphy is supporting something, it may be that the manager gets carried along for the ride.
What C.Elliott is up to on Tuesday nights? C.Elliott favors a Plan A (Strong Mayor) for of city goverment. He is on the record, repeatedly, promoting his opinion. As recently as yesterday, on Warren Shaw’s morning show on WCAP, Elliott fluffed the notion of strong Mayor.
If we are going to speculate about Mayor Murphy’s motives, would it be reasonable to suggest that C.Elliott uses his time to damage the City Manager, thus degrade the effectiveness of Plan E city government? Do we have ANY evidence of this?
February 24th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
We don’t get the janitor’s word, actually. The story specifies that he declined comment. Eventually. Towards the bottom. It’s easy not to notice who is actually quoted in the story.
February 24th, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Jack,
To compare Councilors Mercier, Kennedy, Elliott to Nazis, Fascists, and Militarists is reprehensible and below the belt. Yet that is exactly what you did by calling them the “the axis of chatty”. Also, asking questions of the manager’s policies is not being “chatty” but doing their job.
February 24th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
I am just totally aghast at how, possibly, one could even for a second believe that “axis of chatty” and fascism are congruent.
This is a sad day for the English language, honestly. You are a great example of trying to interpret something the way you want in order to take umbrage.
Questioning the manager’s policies is the job of the Council, certainly. Being stupid is the job of one Rodney Elliott. HE GOT HIS ANSWERS. Then he persisted in asking the same questions!! I mean, in what world do you GET WHAT YOU WANT, then complain??
I will note that Rita Mercier is having none of this at least at the meetings. She didn’t chime in to support Elliott like Kennedy did.
By the way, comparing Elliott to Nazis etc, is unfair. Hitler et all were at least fairly smart and knew what they were doing, even if what they were doing was utterly reprehensible. They knew how to lead. Elliott? He knows how to be lead around by the nose by the Lowell Sun.
February 24th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
The “Consortium of Chatty” just doesn’t have the same ring to it. The point is to be ridiculous, a parody. That is why I went with a ‘Dubya’ meme, as in the ‘Axis of Evil.’ NOONE is more of a self-parody than George W. Booosh. (h/t John Nappi)
February 24th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Ya think he’s trying to change the charter because it’s easier for him to get 5 thousand votes than 5?
February 24th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
But more to the point, Publius. Do you think C.Elliott is trying to run our Plan E gov’t into the dirt, so that Plan A is more appealing to a frustrated electorate? I think there are many clues to suggest it.
February 24th, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Sorry to say Lynn your remarks about Councilor Elliot above jumped more than the shark. And, since you always say, and I agree, nobody makes me come to this page, I no longer will.
February 24th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
How is it that C. Elliott is going to become a ‘victim’ on this thread? This is a guy that continually makes a mockery of the public’s business. Yet, here we are dealing with high dudgeon.
This diary offers two considerations:
1) The Lowell Sun is to be viewed with great skepticism.
2) C.Elliott’s motivations are to be closely examined. He has publicly stated that he supports a charter change. Are his actions in public session directed at steering public sentiment away from Plan E and towards Plan A.
Nazi talk is a distraction.
February 24th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Let me just say this: I think it’s a legitimate mocking of Publius’ silly comment to make the comment I did. In part, I was pointing out just how stupid the comment was.
I think I just made my point.
February 24th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
@PC I dream at night about 5,000 Lowellians watching the Council meetings on LTC. It sure would make it easier for me to keep up with the ’small talk’ in mixed company. I’m a hockey fan, so talking about sports ain’t much of an option.
February 24th, 2013 at 8:41 pm
Also @PC - I think he knows he won’t get 5, perhaps ever (especially if he keeps pissing off his colleagues like this), but he might get 5,000. At least, he thinks that until and unless my theory holds true in the next election - that he’s actually lost a bunch of votes with his nonsense over the last couple of years.
Funny thing is, I’ve been “seeing” this Rodney Elliott since Kaz got elected, and he became their “safe sixth” vote. A finger-in-the-wind flip-flopper. And the Kaz crew screwed him over anyway.
I’ve been pointing out his behavior ever since. It’s only that it’s gotten so obvious lately, I barely need to do anything except run a video of his greatest hits for people to see it for themselves without even any context of all that background on factions and such.
February 24th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
My point exactly. He needs to change the charter because he has no votes on the council. Anybody else notice Kennedy’s Cheshire Cat grin lately?
February 24th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
That’s because, PC, he is practicing the smile he’ll use when they smatter his face on the wall, as Mayor, in 2014.
How does ‘City Time’ count towards a County retirement? And, who would bear the ‘unfunded liability’ of a County employee’s retirement? Both Kennedy and Mercier have substantial County pay checks, at one time or another. Who pays their retirement?
February 24th, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Can we get back to the Charter thing for a moment? Why not a Mayor AND a City Manager, as a number of cities across the Commonwealth, and the nation, conduct their business? It isn’t just either/or. It can also be BOTH.
Just a thought…
Regards — Cliff
February 24th, 2013 at 11:07 pm
I could be talked into electing a full time, ‘weak Mayor.’
The office would have to be elected apart from the other Councilors, imo. I think a candidate would have to commit, all or nothing, to becoming Mayor.
February 25th, 2013 at 9:01 am
I’m under the opinion that this system works no matter who is manager. I would like to see neighborhood representation though. One rep for each neighborhood and two or three at-large.
February 25th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Re PC’s comment (Number 16), is that going back to the two chamber approach of years ago? We still have that second chamber, in the North Wing of City Hall.
Regards — Cliff
February 25th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
We still have that second chamber, in the North Wing of City Hall.
Is that some sort of code for the SAC Club?
February 25th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
PC - and we go back to agreeing that some district representation would be nice…and no way to get it done.
Personally I have always been for a mix myself - perhaps 5 districts, and 4 at-large, in my ideal universe, and make sure the districts really are geographically and demographically related - no splitting the Acre, for instance.
But how to get anyone on board with this, like, ever??
February 25th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Well, we have to start somewhere. We already have one “nay”.