jackiedoherty.org

Despite local media reports about alleged, overwhelming anger directed at Congresswoman Niki Tsongas at yesterday’s senior women’s breakfast in Chelmsford (Seniors take Tsongas to Task), the other perspective on the story is that the anger was media hype combined with a dash of mistaken identity. Apparently, it was not female senior citizens who had the most strongly worded comments for Tsongas and who took up most of the time allotted for questions, but instead, a group of vocal Tea Party crashers, most of whom were not women. (See this video of the event.) That’s not to say you can’t have concerns about the sweeping legislation or that there aren’t folks out there with them, but the most important aspect of all this is to get the facts. Tsongas explains here in today’s Sun how health care reform will reduce the deficit, cut waste in medicare, and end taxpayer subsidies for private insurers’ overpayment and inefficiency. Another Sun article explains the medicare costs in detail, quoted in part, below (my bold):

“Nearly $500 billion in cuts under the health-reform package include no direct reductions to traditional Medicare benefits, Tsongas said. Instead, the cuts will come largely from limits to growth in future Medicare spending over the next 10 years and lower government funding of private Medicare Advantage plans. About 25 percent of all Medicare recipients get health care through these plans, including 7,400 in the 5th Congressional District, that generally reduce what people have to pay from their own pockets for medical services.

‘The small premiums are from the government paying out about 14 percent more for Advantage than it costs to cover seniors in traditional Medicare,’ Tsongas said. ‘You have to say what’s fair and what’s wasteful,’ Tsongas said. ‘Paying more for a select group is not fair to the majority receiving traditional Medicare and it’s misspending taxpayers dollars.’

While premiums for Advantage plans are likely to rise next year, ‘insurers cannot offer fewer benefits than the original Medicare plan, whether you’re on traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage,’ Tsongas added. AARP Massachusetts, and other advocates for seniors, support health-care reform and insist the landmark bill will strengthen the overall Medicare program and benefit seniors.”

I just got off the phone with Jen Myers, reporter for the Lowell Sun, who is trolling to find out who may run for the open seat left by State Senator Steve Panagiotakos, chair of ways and means, who announced late this afternoon that he will not be seeking re-election this fall. Add this democratic seat to the other 23+ that are open this fall and you have a watershed moment in Massachusetts politics. According to Myers, one name that keeps coming up as a likely candidate for the seat is former city councilor Eileen Donaghue. Many see Donaghue as an excellent candidate and one who would run a good campaign. Readers may recall, she ran a solid campaign for Congress, losing in the primary to Representative Niki Tsongas.

If you’re around this weekend, you’ll want to attend a  meeting with Senator John Kerry and Representative Niki Tsongas on Saturday, Jan. 30, at 9 a.m. at Middlesex Community College’s Federal Building, 33 Kearney Square in Lowell. State Senator Steve Panagiotakos, chair of ways and means, will also be there along with civic, business and labor leaders. The purpose of the meeting is to share information, and discuss jobs, the Merrimack Valley, and ways to invigorate the economy. Attend this public meeting to learn firsthand from people making decisions that will impact our recovery rate, and take the opportunity to have your concerns and ideas heard.

It made me sick to read today’s front-page headlines in the Boston Globe and the New York Times about the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations unlimited contributions in federal elections. The Times also ran an editorial that puts the impact of this decision in perspective. As Marie reports here, UMass Chancellor and former U.S. Representative Marty Meehan had a similar reaction. While supporters and the prevailing justices tried to frame this as a free speech issue, this ruling has opened the floodgates for undue influence from special interest groups with deep pockets—a decision that will seriously impact the number and diversity of candidates able to run viable campaigns as well as the effectiveness of incumbents to enact reforms that big business doesn’t like. Also, be prepared for the domino effect because state and local election rules likely will be next. One of the reasons I supported the Fair Vote Lowell campaign to change the city’s charter for electing local candidates was the money issue. It is already difficult for a good candidate to run an effective campaign without friends with deep pockets. In local elections, we have seen some candidates spend $100K in a state representative race, upwards of $40K for city council, and nearly $20K for a seat on the school committee. (Not that spending money always equals victory, but money buys visibility to reach voters, which becomes even more critical in larger races.) No matter how you twist it, this issue is NOT about free speech. It is about rich special interest groups having undue influence on a person’s ability to stay in office or get elected. Unchecked, this ruling will result in incumbents who cannot challenge special interest groups without serious consequences, candidates who will not be able to win without befriending big business, and many good people who will not even try. It is tough enough to get people to run for office. Making it all about the money is the exact wrong way to go.

Voter apathy has been a recurring topic on this blog and others, as well as in the mainstream media, so it would seem any effort that would encourage more voters is a good one. Today’s Sun has an article about a bill currently being considered that would, among other things, allow Massachusetts’ voters to register and vote on the same day. (You may recall, last Wednesday was the final day to register for the upcoming special election for U.S. Senator on Jan. 19.) My initial post on election-day registration, as well as this one (both from 2008) detail some of the reasons why this would be good for the Commonwealth. For more information on this issue or to get involved in supporting it, check MassVOTE.

Imagine you and your loved ones in the back seat of a car with no say in the speed or direction the driver takes. Would you really allow that to happen? Yet, every election it seems voter turnout hovers at 25% or worse. That’s a lot of people going along for the ride. I had an argument with a beloved family member on Christmas day, who told me not to judge her because she didn’t choose to vote, didn’t bother to register, and didn’t pay attention to “politicians who say whatever it takes to get elected.” Excuse me, but I will judge you—as stupid and lazy—not to participate in what is our responsibility and privilege as American citizens: That is, the opportunity to decide our leadership. I know we’re all busy, many politicians have become entertaining spin-doctors who feed the electorate what they think we want to hear, and often it feels like any election is deciding the lesser of evils as opposed to choosing truly talented and inspiring leadership. That’s no excuse. We owe it to ourselves, our ancestors, and especially our children to pay attention, so that we go to the polls as informed voters. Mind you, those last two are important: informed voters. It makes no sense to check boxes without knowing who and what you are supporting. And if you are truly disappointed by the quality of candidates, pull papers and run yourself, or encourage and support someone else running. The last thing you are allowed to do is check out of the system. With more folks willing to give up their say in the direction we’re all going, the likelihood of a driver who only listens to special interests or extremists increases exponentially. And if you think our elected leaders don’t impact you personally, add delusional to my earlier judgment.

Check out LiL or Dick Howe’s blog for information about registering by 8 p.m. tonight to vote in the special senatorial election on Jan. 19.

Today’s Boston Globe has an op-ed about the need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine amid the current lack of civility in today’s media. That point should resonate with anyone who pays attention to Lowell politics and our own media outlets, particularly our local newspaper. (Local radio, some blogs, and internet comments especially, also can be harsh, but that’s a post for another day.) According to the Globe op ed: “…consider the state of ‘mainstream media’ outlets. Increasingly they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, ‘Does this story serve the public good?’ they ask. ‘Will it get ratings?’”

It’s no surprise that mainstream media is a business out to make money, but what is problematic is when accuracy falls victim to sensationalizing the story, and personal attacks take on an obsessive, mean-spiritedness. (The editors then wonder why more people don’t run for office.) LiL has a recent, snub-nosed post about some nastiness from The Sun after the 2007 election, and here is my response to that long ago taunt. Yesterday, The Sun Column was at it again, and although I was not a direct target this time, I couldn’t help but twinge in discomfort over the cruel ridicule bestowed on others. These are people with families who are members of our community, who put their names on the ballot, and who risk very public failure to run for an elected position that pays little and demands much. Regardless of their shortcomings or the final tally of votes, don’t they at least deserve a modicum of decency in how it’s covered? (Don’t we all?) In my family, we learned early that it takes courage to risk failure and work for your goals, and that equally important to being a good loser is being a graceful winner. The hateful words are unnecessary and harmful, not only to the individuals named, but to our entire community.

The following letter was sent yesterday to  Fair Vote Lowell supporters. It is posted here with the permission of Victoria Fahlberg:

Dear Supporters of Fair Vote Lowell,

As you likely know by now, Choice Voting did not pass by a margin of 43% to 57%, or 5174 yes votes and 6841 no votes. We do not know the results yet in terms of precincts other than hearing that the Downtown precincts had more than a 100% increase in turnout and the traditionally strong precincts had about the same voter turnout. We don’t know if the new voters voted for Choice Voting (I’m betting they did), and in the upcoming days we will be analyzing the data to determine where our votes came from.

I have been thinking a lot about what the results mean, but before I get to that, I want to express my deep and sincere gratitude to every person who worked on this campaign. Unlike most campaigns, this campaign had two parts that required enormous work from volunteers. First, was the signature gathering that often took place in the rain or intense heat. More than 100 different people helped us gather an enormous number of signatures. It was that turnout of volunteers that gave Fair Vote Lowell the ability to press forward despite the odds against us.

Once we were finished with the signature gathering, we entered a whole new phase, that of the campaign itself. This phase also required intense labor on the behalf of volunteers, from phonebanking to canvassing, it was amazing how, once again, hundreds of people in Lowell, often people who had not participated in the signature gathering phase, stepped up to move the campaign forward.

There really are not words to describe the gratitude and thanks that all of you deserve who participated in any aspect of the Fair Vote Lowell Campaign. It was a wonderful experience to see the hope and energy of such a large and diverse group of people, who were willing to give their time to promoting justice and fairness. Thank you, thank you.

While a loss feels pretty terrible, as I reflect upon the results, I can’t feel entirely discouraged.  We had a huge uphill battle from the beginning—here are some of the challenges we faced:

1. The bar for gathering signatures for a local initiative is set at a minimum of 8% of all registered voters. For comparison, a statewide initiative only requires signatures of 3% of voters who voted in the last statewide (gubernatorial election). For us, that meant 4188 certified signatures to get choice voting on the ballot.  In Lowell, for a statewide measure it would have only been 641 certified signatures (our volunteers did more than that in a single weekend!)
2. Winning in a statewide initiative requires only a simple majority, as long as that majority includes at least a third of voters who turned out in the last gubernatorial election, whereas the bar for us included a super majority turnout that has not been seen in a local election in decades.
3. The Lowell Sun told their readers to vote No on Choice Voting. While some in Lowell debate the efficacy of our local newspaper, it should be obvious after looking at the overall results of the election thatThe Sun still holds a great deal of power among voters.
4. The local radio station was so biased against us that we felt that we could not utilize them as a source for advertising and be treated fairly. They don’t have a large audience, so this was not a major impact, but it probably did impact a few of their listeners to vote against us.
5. It was our understanding that on the ballot, the referendum would be called Question 1. The referendum had no title at all and the words Question 1 did not appear at all.  During the day, we received a number of calls from people we had phonebanked that they had not seen Question 1 on the ballot. While this would not have impacted the final result, it did confuse some people who went to the polls to vote YES on Question 1 and most likely contributed to the almost 1,700 voters who did not even vote on the question.
6. Few people in Lowell had ever heard of Choice Voting before we began signature gathering in June. We finally got the required signatures on August 27th, which only left us two months to educate the public on an issue that was completely new to them in so many ways—that Lowell’s current system is the least fair system for local multi-seat elections, that ranking candidates provides a more fair system, explaining the complicated (though necessary) vote tabulation, etc.
7. When we started this adventure, we had the promise of funds to see us through to the end, but in June that funding fell through. As a result, we were often a day late and a dollar short, so to speak. In the last few weeks of the campaign, we did see some significant donations that will help offset the cost to ONE Lowell. However, if the promised funding had been available in the Spring, I believe that we could have done more.

So with all of these challenges taken into consideration, everyone at Fair Vote Lowell actually achieved a major accomplishment—nearly 5200 people in Lowell voted for Choice Voting! The more I think about the challenges we faced, the more amazing it becomes to me that so many people voted YES for Choice Voting. How we will best use this incredible accomplishment moving forward, I don’t know. The accomplishment is not that of any one person—it belongs to us all. What I do know is that moving forward, ONE Lowell needs to hear from you, who rose to a challenge, and made a huge impact on your city.

More than anything, I want you to know that even though we lost the vote, we made our voices heard and we are more united than ever. Fairness and justice often come slowly. But it will come. Thank you, Victoria

It was a long day today, standing on achy feet outside the polls for hours with incumbents, challengers and supporters, watching and hoping for voters. At times, I admit, I was concerned about the turnout, concerned about how I would feel about my community if we didn’t see positive change, if people didn’t bother to come out and vote. Although the numbers still seem disappointingly low, the results for change were significant. The Choice Vote initiative may not have gotten the support it needed to pass, particularly in terms of a substantial increase in voters, but the message from the 5,174 who voted yes on the ballot question demonstrated that many people in this city want a government that is more representative, inclusive and accessible. Perhaps Choice Voting is not the answer, or perhaps now is not the time, but the conversation this initiative began will continue; some change is inevitable, and I predict it will happen soon.

In terms of the candidates, my congratulations to everyone who had the courage to put their names on the ballot and run. We saw several upsets on the council, the school committee, and the vocational board as incumbents Armand Mercier, Alan Kazanjian, Regina Faticanti and Michael Hayden lost seats to challengers Franky Descoteaux, Joe Mendonca, Patrick Murphy, Alison Laraba, and Fred Bahou—good hardworking, thoughtful challengers who earned the voters’ trust. As candidates, all we can do is work toward our goal, knowing we have given our best effort, but at the end of the day, the voters get to decide. Today, the voters decided I will continue to serve on the Lowell School Committee. For that honor and privilege, thank you.

First, I’m asking for your vote tomorrow to keep me on the school committee because I’m working smarter and harder than ever. The challenges our schools face cannot be solved in Lowell alone. Concerns around resources and accountability must be resolved at the state level, and as chair of the urban division of the Mass. Assoc. of School Committees, my reform efforts with other state education leaders are making an impact along with my work at the local level.

Second, I ask you to vote Yes on Question 1 because it is a fairer system for the city and all its residents. On Saturday, while knocking on doors, a voter asked me if I was crazy to want this change, since as he put it, “I got elected three times under the current system, so why fix what isn’t broken?” Frankly, I don’t think I would have a problem getting re-elected under Choice Voting, but more importantly, other good candidates will have a better chance of winning a seat, money will not be as critical in elections, more voters will be empowered, and all voters will rank their votes rather than limit them. I’m concerned how many votes are “thrown away” because voters have to worry about cancelling out favored candidates (in the 2007 election, 30,000+ votes were unused in the council race). Also, since it takes majority consensus to accomplish anything on these boards, when a group representing one percent of total voters (that’s 5,000 voters) are able to elect a slate of seats while other voters don’t get even one of their candidates elected, it leads to voter apathy and little diversity in leadership. Under a choice system, voters must prioritize their votes, which makes it more difficult for groups to elect a slate. Maybe it shouldn’t concern me that we are one of the few large cities to continue to use a system stacked against newcomers, especially since I’ve done well with it, but just like being a good parent or a good school committee member means doing what’s right over what’s easy, it concerns me greatly. Lowell deserves a fairer system for electing its leaders—one that encourages more candidates and empowers all voters—vote Yes on Question 1!