Left In Lowell

So often in politics, there are tiny rooms filled with large elephants. Yet, no one will say a goddamned thing.

And so the powers that be have anointed Congressman Ed Markey as the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, issuing a well choreographed series of endorsements to his new candidacy to replace John Kerry. Why, even the future Secretary of State got into the act, issuing a statement that sounded like an endorsement. (Probably written by the wordmasters over at Foggy Bottom for the ever so diplomatic Secretary of State in waiting.)
…

Just a couple of observations on the “process”. It is not clear to me that Ed Markey is the right answer to the question on who has the best shot to hold the seat for Democrats. But far smarter people, with access to data, have determined that he is, so let us concede the point. Nonetheless what has happened here is an injustice to Capuano, Lynch, Downing, and whoever else was thinking about running. I do not come at this question as a “process” diehard, as some of my good Democratic friends do. I like to win, and I like to see things move, and on that basis I understand what happened. But Capuano, Lynch, and Downing deserved better than what they got. And I am fascinated by the utter lack of consistency of some of those in the liberal blogosphere, who have been devoted to “process” and “democracy”, who now turn a blind eye to what is nothing short of putting the fix in. It will just be a bit more difficult to raise objections in the future when it happens with a different set of candidates.

Finally it is worth noting that one pretty big footprint lies on the back of Governor Deval Patrick, who went from a key player in the selection process to an after thought. Since the Markey move the Governor has been marginalized, with the Washington folks just blowing right by him. The Governor is used to doing the big footing, but in this case the role has been reversed.

Thank you, Mayor Bill Manzi.
(more…)

I wanted to point this out now.

From the Blog of the Blog of Record:

WHILE THE City Council’s public vote Tuesday night on approving Auditor Sheryl Wright’s contract was 5-4, the vote whether or not to approve it in executive session gave Wright a little more breathing room.

The roll call in the private session was 6-3, with Councilor John Leahy, who later voted publicly against the contract, voting yes.

Leahy said he did not have a change of heart during the walk from the private session in the mayor’s reception room to the Council Chambers. Leahy said he voted for the final package in executive session, after voting in favor of most of its changes, to get the pact to the floor.

He told The Column he voted against the contract in public because he said he believes the position of auditor should be an appointment, and there should not be a contract in place.

Leahy said he was one of three councilors who voted earlier this fall against negotiating a new contract with Wright.
-snip

I have to spend some time pulling all the minutes, ect. together; but trust me when I say, John Leahy had no compunction WHATSOEVER supporting contracts when he was on the School Committee. Especially, a long term contract for Jay Lang.

To be clear, I’m convinced this wrangling by Kennedy and his protege Leahy, is more about the next contract with Lynch, than it is about the Auditor. They are laying a crumb trail, so they can try to evade supporting a contract for the CM in 2014.

Criticize my ‘hunch,’ as you see fit. It’s just that I have noticed that some only bother with the flimsiest of fig leaves, the skantest of plausible denialabilities. It’s because they know some will cry foul, while others will hoist them aloft on shoulders.

This is Lowell. Don’t let the nice guy smiles goad you into complacency.

UPDATE:

Lowell City Council to negotiate with embattled auditor
Lyle Moran (9/25/12)
…
Mayor Patrick Murphy and Councilors Marty Lorrey, Bill Martin, Joseph Mendonca, Rita Mercier and Vesna Nuon voted to enter the negotiations with Wright.
Councilors Rodney Elliott, Ed Kennedy and John Leahy voted against entering negotiations with Wright, who is hired by and reports directly to the council.
Wright told the council she likely would have left Lowell if she did not have a contract. She declined to comment after the meeting.
-snip

Kennedy also said he does not see any benefit to the council or city in giving whoever holds the auditor’s position a contract. Leahy, who has only been on the council since earlier this month, said he voted against contract negotiations because he is not a supporter of contracts.
(bold mine)

Well, that was now.

This is then. When John Leahy was on the School Committee and apparently loved him some contracts!
(more…)

#notrustinthetech

So, Gerry Nutter is all jerked off because Erik Gitschier did his homework and opted to address the issue in public session, as opposed to doing the preferred Santoro work around, over the phone.

It’s not like the warning signs weren’t glaring:

The title says it all:

Member of connected Dracut family now on Tech payroll
Posted by sunthecolumn on December 11th, 2012

A member of a politically-connected Dracut family is now employed at the Greater Lowell Technical High School.

Andrew Blatus, son of former Dracut Selectman Michael Blatus Sr. and brother of former Dracut School Committee member Michael C. Blatus, was hired as a guidance counselor.

Superintendent-Director Mary Jo Santoro said Blatus’s family connections had nothing to do with his hiring. “I know the history. I’m not really connected to the family in any way. It wasn’t a consideration in my decision,” said Santoro.

Sadly enough, I believe Santoro in this case. The Blog of the Blog of Record, for some reason, opts to frame this story around partisan politics and release it during the Dracut vote on approving the funding for the GLTHS renovations. (Btw, Dracut approved their part of the funding.) Those pesky Democrats, huh?

What’s really interesting is the cynicism that made this story ’shine’ in the first place. Charges of nepotism hang so heavy out there, at GLTHS, it’s hard to believe the Superintendant, anymore.
(more…)

Gall:
1a : bile; especially : bile obtained from an animal and used in the arts or medicine
b : something bitter to endure
c : bitterness of spirit : rancor
2: brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence

Case in point:

* The School Committee passed Conway’s motion requesting a report from the superintendent on hiring practices in the district for administrators, supervisors and districtwide positions.

He said teachers have approached him with concerns over the consistency and transparency when it comes to hiring. While some positions use a search committee and interviews are held in public, others are not, he said.

“I certainly can understand the frustration that some jobs are out in the open and some are not. I’d like to know why,” he said.

(more…)

We have ‘rumor,” and we have data:

But, not all data is created equal.
(more…)

I really go back and forth on whether Gerry’s blog is useful or just a nuisance. (Sorry Gerry, but that’s the truth.) On the one hand, he has done some very good things to further the discussion on politics in Lowell. On the other, he uses his forum to produce rank speculations that have no basis in anything other than his musings. I wish he’d keep his speculations to a minimum, because when he’s on, he’s pretty decent.

Case in point, this post about the current blog v. GLTHSC situation. First, he complains about Cliff’s reaction to his comments yesterday about some people in the Lowell Rumor Mill™ stating that we at LiL didn’t pay attention to the GLT situation until Cliff didn’t get the nod from the selection committee.

For John, BLUF: Blogger Gerrry Nutter got confused on WCAP this AM, over why Left in Lowell has again focused on GLTHS.

On WCAP (680 AM) this AM Blogger Gerry Nutter suggested that Left in Lowell picked up the theme of GLTHS as a result of Ray Boutin, vice Cliff Krieger, being appointed to the GLTHS School Committee

Cliff’s hearing may be going (Nice to see he types like me, one to many r’s in GERRY and 980 WCAP) because what I said is the gossip making the rounds by those who support the Superintendent at the tech is Left in Lowell didn’t start focusing on the Tech until Cliff was bypassed and that Jack is being political because he’s blaming the Supt.for Cliff not getting the appointment.

Truth to tell, I think Cliff misunderstood what Gerry was trying to do on the radio. I was there, and it was pretty obvious Gerry was trying to air out a rumor he himself didn’t believe. Given the personal nature of that rumor against Cliff (attacking our and Cliff’s integrity), I’m not surprised he reacted, but as for me, I thanked Gerry after the show for mentioning because it put sunlight on the rumor so it could be refuted, which to my mind appeared to be what Gerry intended by bringing it up. (more…)

So I was wrong in my Lyle post last Wednesday. I am retracting part of my commentary made there.

Specifically, it wasn’t Elliot who Lyle was talking about as “other elected officials” who are upset at my comments on this blog (over, I presume, the course of seven whole years). It was the other one I could have predicted is unhappy with me, Councilor Rita Mercier. (Damn, and I though my video commentary clip of Elliot the other week was pretty clever. I’ll have to make more of a nuisance of myself.)

MERCIER SAID she was not surprised by Lupien’s posting.

“She has a dirty trash mouth and that is wrong,” Mercier said. “No one should ever say somebody should be hung. I give Mary Jo credit for going to police and I hope she gets Lynne’s blog shut down so she stops trying to bully people in a nasty way.”

I find it rather telling that Rita wants to shut down free speech, just because it disagrees with her. Think about that for a moment. (more…)

I’ve been literally running around in circles all day trying to finish prep for hosting of the Thanksgiving Day festivities. With a 24lb turkey to get into my Alton Brown brine (I even found candied ginger today, in my second MarketBasket in two days), a house to clean, and a lot of guests coming, it’s been hard to be online much. (PS: if you do not get your fresh turkey from Elm Turkey Farm you are missing something!)

But obviously there’s some to-do in the state of Lowell blogistan. So I am taking really precious time out of my day (vacuuming! washing floors! mashed sweet potatoes with cream, cardamom, and maple syrup yet to start!) to address it.

If you’ve read the online article from the Lowell Sun by reporter Sarah Favot (who has the GLTHS beat) you’ll know what I’m talking about. At issue is a comment I made on Jack’s post from November 18th. (I’m snipping out the irrelevant part at the beginning addressed to the Anonymous comments.)

I admit to not knowing (or having paid attention to) all the details of this crazy ass “harassment” stuff. But I smell bullshit. And if someone - a person in LEADERSHIP - calls wolf on harassment like this, I want her head on a platter. Women have it tough enough without assholes using it as a political tool, making a legitimate harassment claim harder to believe.

Seriously, if this is what I believe it to be, it’s absolutely disgusting, and totally unethical, and she should be hung for it.

Apparently, Mary Jo Santoro decided to construe this as some sort of personal, physical threat, and reportedly went to the Lowell PD, who referred her to the Tyngsboro PD, where she was supposedly heading to today to file a complaint.

First and foremost, and I do believe this is pretty plain within the context of my comment, of course I meant absolutely no personal physical threat to Ms. Santoro. Anyone who knows me – or heck, reads my blog, knows I’m about as physically threatening as the mice that make their way into my house in the cold fall weather that I insist upon trapping humanely so I can release them in a nice field away from human habitation. (This year it was a mom and her three half grown meese children.) But even if you don’t know me at all or have never read a word of my blog, the comment totally does not meet any standard of threat that can be reasonably argued. Specifically, the use of very common phrases to denote “accountability” like head on a platter or hung (usually elongated as “hung out to dry”) could hardly be argued to be actual threats of harm. They are hyperbole.

Furthermore, political hyperbole is protected first amendment free speech. To quote:

Consistent with judicial construction given to other federal threat statutes, § 875(c) applies only to “true threats” which are not protected by the First Amendment. This requirement was established by Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (per curiam), which held that a threat statute “must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,” and therefore be construed only to reach a “true threat” and not “constitutionally protected speech.” Such protected speech includes “political hyperbole” or “vehement,” “caustic,” or “unpleasantly sharp attacks” that fall short of true threats.

When assessing whether a communication constitutes a true threat, context is important. Various factors must be considered, including the following: the reaction of the person who received the threat; the history and relationship between the defendant and the victim; whether the threat was communicated directly to the victim; and whether the threat was conditional. By properly assessing these factors at the investigative and charging stages of a case, federal prosecutors can avoid, minimize and overcome defense arguments to the trier of fact that the defendant was purely exercising free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

My comment is very obviously political hyperbole. Which of course I engage in on a regular basis. It’s fun. It’s protected. It’s even cathartic, but that’s not why I do it. I do it to point out injustices, bad political actors, and misuse of the public trust, its funds, and the abuse of power in general.

In other words. Protected speech.

Also, consistent with that quote from www.justice.gov, is that Ms. Santoro and I have zero personal interaction. In fact, and I quote her from the Lowell Sun article online today, “But I wouldn’t know this woman if I saw her in a parking lot.” Pretty much proof positive that we have no personal relationship or history whatsoever.

Furthermore, the speech was delivered not personally, not even with any knowledge whether or not Ms. Santoro would ever read it, but on a blog. Publicly. Not in a personal phone call, email, or any other delivery system direct to Ms. Santoro. It’s probably the least “direct” a communication could ever get, frankly. Excepting the Lowell Rumor Mill™.

Another point in the quoted legal paragraph above is whether the threat was conditional. As in, “if x happens, then y.” If a statement is conditional, it does not meet the standard of threat. Let me quote my own comment again, this time with italics where the conditionals exist:

I admit to not knowing (or having paid attention to) all the details of this crazy ass “harassment” stuff. But I smell bullshit. And if someone - a person in LEADERSHIP - calls wolf on harassment like this, I want her head on a platter. Women have it tough enough without assholes using it as a political tool, making a legitimate harassment claim harder to believe.

Seriously, if this is what I believe it to be, it’s absolutely disgusting, and totally unethical, and she should be hung for it.

Lots of ifs there. I didn’t directly state that Santoro is falsifying her harassment case against Eric Gitschier. I stated that if that was the case, I would be very angry about it and, in hyperbolic phraseology, would want her held accountable for such an act. Furthermore, I support that view with a very compelling reason – that of the plight of a real woman in a real harassment/bias situation in a real workplace whose case may be undermined by any falsified harassment claim someone in such a high profile position makes.

Such protected speech includes “political hyperbole” or “vehement,” “caustic,” or “unpleasantly sharp attacks” that fall short of true threats.

Was I unpleasantly sharp? Caustic? Vehement? Sure. Was it a threat under these conditions outlined? Absolutely not. This falls so far below the level of threat, that it honestly is a waste – of taxpayer dollars – to “investigate.”

I will not in this post question her motives for this action. I’m sure you can come to your own conclusions. I only hope, for all our sakes, that she is not doing this to suppress free speech or thwart legitimate questions or criticism about her tenure as a public servant who works directly for the Greater Lowell Technical High School Committee, whom we, as voters, taxpayers, and citizens, elected to represent us.

I can also assure you, my free speech will not be impinged. I will continue to ask the tough questions, and yes, sometimes my language is colorful. I write sarcastically at times. I use political hyperbole. This should come as no surprise to anyone, considering I’ve been here since 2005 doing the same thing and writing the same way as I always have.

I’m not going anywhere. Lowell, you’re stuck with me.