jackiedoherty.org

Yesterday, The Sun published an article about candidates and their voting records, where I was horrified to learn I got a 67 because I had not voted in 10 primary elections since 1995. (Ouch! A grade like that stings me in so many ways, not only because I’ve always been an excellent student, but because I consider myself a good American who votes and stays informed on the issues.) I don’t dispute the number, but I would like to explain it: For most of my life, I was registered as an Independent because I had grown up in a very polarized-partisan family. My father was a staunch Democrat and my mother a die-hard Republican who defended Nixon until her death. Every state or national election, they dutifully went to City Hall and canceled each other’s vote. By 18, I knew  partisan blindness was not something I wanted to emulate, and I decided I was going to vote the candidate rather than the party.

I don’t remember exactly when I switched to Democrat, but I know it was after I was elected to the school committee. During my first campaign in 2003, while knocking on doors, a voter demanded to know my party affiliation even after I explained it was a non-partisan seat. At the time, I remember being relieved to say that I was unenrolled, thinking no matter what his party, he would not be offended. At some point, however, it occurred to me that I had never voted for anyone but Democrats (who consistently aligned with own political beliefs better than other viable candidates). At that time, I also realized I was missing a huge opportunity to impact an election by not participating in heavily contested primaries. I decided to take a stand and get involved with the party, which I did. My large Irish-Italian family, however, still consists of hardcore party loyalists on both sides of the fence.

(This is Margaret writing, not Jackie.) I just wanted to weigh in on Fair Vote Lowell before it’s too late. I’ve felt all along that I was a supporter of this initiative, but I wanted to convince myself (or not) before Tuesday (better late than never!). My first stop was to read all the comments regarding this issue on a recent Left in Lowell post, then to read the Sun’s editorial against the measure-not too persuasive). Next I visited the Fair Vote website and watched the video with local Attorney Michael Gallagher interviewing Professor Douglas Amy of Mount Holyoke College who has written several books on voting systems. My conclusion is that despite some valid objections (the elimination of the primary system – oh, wait, that’s already been done for us – and the fact that it seems complicated are the most valid), the proposed system is better than what we have now. As for the idea that the system is too complicated, I actually think it is going to be very simple and intuitive for voters. (Dr. Amy’s research indicates that voters under choice systems are very pleased.)

Now for the benefits: For one thing, choice voting has the potential to increase voter turnout as well as encourage new candidates to run for office. Certainly, that would be a boon to Lowell, which has seen declining voter turnout for years. For me, the biggest benefit is the increased power given to the voter. A commentor on Left-in-Lowell complained that he disliked the ranking system, because he wanted all nine of his city council votes to be equal. I disagree; I most definitely do not want all my votes to be equal (it’s been a long time since I’ve even cast 9 votes for city council, but under the new system, one could conceivably find 9 candidates to support that might not be throwaway votes). I would rather send a strong message of preference to incumbents and new candidates alike. When Jackie first ran for School Committee, we were advised to tell our supporters to “bullet” Jackie. That way, your one vote would carry the most weight and not be diluted by the other votes you might cast. With choice voting, you can still “bullet”, but you can also show support to other candidates. I think it makes sense, it would allow more candidates to test the waters and it may break up entrenched voting blocks that prefer the status quo.

Not one to shirk media criticism when it’s warranted, I take space here to express my disappointment with WCAP Radio. Last week was a pretty exciting news week for me. House Bill 481—a bill I helped initiate a year ago—was heard before the Joint Committee on Education on Tuesday, Oct. 20. When I contacted our two media outlets, The Sun and WCAP, to cover this issue, which currently impacts our school budget by $1.3 million as well as the lives of 23 children forced out of district, I was told by our local radio station that it was too close to the election for me to come on-air. Mind you, this was only days after station co-owner Sam Poulten, a member of the Nashoba Vocational School board familiar with the bill, suggested I contact WCAP to discuss the issue, as well as only days after Councilor Kazanjian went on the Warren Shaw show to discuss his news—regarding a subpoena—for an hour!

Okay, they’re different issues—one is a hearing about changing a law to protect kids and save money while the other is a legal mandate to appear in court and give testimony to determine if any laws were broken. Most would agree, however, that House Bill 481 is as newsworthy as a subpoena, which leads me to conclude that getting on WCAP these days isn’t about equal time or even newsworthiness, but rather, it is about who is asking. Perhaps I should feel better that when I mentioned the unfair treatment to co-host Teddy Panos, he admitted to having to “tip toe” around the newsy-enough issue regarding time for the councilor. But the fact is, the more I think about it, the more annoyed I am.

By the way, The Sun did cover the issue before and after the hearing. Besides being news with far-reaching impact on costs and kids, House Bill 481 is not done yet; we now need speedy passage, which is where the bulk of my energy will be invested next.

The Sun has an article in today’s paper about a hearing tomorrow at the State House before the Joint Committee on Education. I will travel to Boston with Assistant Superintendent Ann Murphy to speak in favor of House Bill 481. It won’t be the first time I’ve testified on issues before the state legislature that impact our public schools, but it will be the first time I support a bill that actually originated from Lowell—a brainchild of our own school administrators at my request for a suggestion for change that is good for kids and makes fiscal sense. (As the Lowell delegate for the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, I took the request to their convention last fall where it passed unanimously and became part of MASC resolutions before the legislature.)

Today, support for the bill reads like a Who’s Who list of local lawmakers. In addition to lead sponsor Representative Pam Richardson who formerly served on the Framingham School Committee, other sponsors include: Kevin Murphy, 18th Middlesex; Dave Nangle,17th Middlesex; Tom Golden, 16^th Middlesex; College Garry, 36^th Middlesex; Jennifer Callahan, 18^th Worcester; Bruce Tarr, First Essex and Middlesex; and Thomas Conroy, 13^th Middlesex.

Despite the fiscal crisis facing schools across the state, I wouldn’t be going to Boston tomorrow if I didn’t believe House Bill 481 is in the best interest of our most vulnerable students regardless of the savings. The cost in mandated private tuition has been significant, but more importantly, the current practice has stripped school districts of their right to have a voice in where their children should be educated once the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) takes custody. Without that safety net, the true victims are DCF children unnecessarily forced to leave their friends and teachers behind. House Bill 481 gives districts the opportunity to advocate for keeping a child in his home school when that is appropriate, as well as reducing out-of-district costs significantly. (More on the bill after the hearing.)

The Lowell Citywide Parent Council will hold its School Committee Candidates Forum Monday night at the LHS Little Theatre from 7-9 pm. You can attend the forum in person or watch from home on cable channel 22. If you miss the event live, the program will be replayed during these times. With two hours and only seven candidates for six seats, the forum will offer viewers an opportunity to determine where the candidates stand on the issues and what they see as their role in improving the Lowell Public Schools. As in past years, the forum will include two-minute opening and closing statements, one general question that all will answer, specific questions from panelists and audience members, and opportunities for candidates to “rebut” or comment on each other’s remarks. I know I’m not objective, but the CPC forums are always interesting and informative. Please join us for this important evening of democracy in action. If you’d like to submit questions for the forum, email cpc@yahoo.com lowellcpc@yahoo.com.

As Jackie’s  rather invisible Campaign Manager lately (I have a ‘real’ job these days), I want to thank everyone who came out last night to the Mambo Grill in support of Jackie’s candidacy. I also want to give a big thanks to our hostess Julie and her helpers who provided great food and a warm atmosphere for our supporters. It was so nice to see old friends show up who have supported Jackie since the first campaign in 2003, and to see some new faces on the political scene such as Alison Laraba, an articulate parent who is the sole challenger for a seat on the school committee this election year (sitting school committee members Jim Leary and Dave Conway were present as well). We also welcomed State Rep Kevin Murphy and our old friend and former school commitee member, Joe Mendonca, who is set on regaining his seat on the city council, along with Lowell Vocational Technical School challenger Fred Bahou; Patrick Murphy, onetime congressional candidate now running for city council; and city council challenger Paul Belley. We were also pleased to welcome our old Citywide Parent Council friends. This reunion of activists who are still focused on making Lowell schools the best they can possibly be was energizing for those of us, such as myself, who have become somewhat disengaged from the local scene. There was also a lot of debate about and support for Fair Vote Lowell (more about this hot topic coming soon). With only three weeks until the election and at least four other events going on last night, we were heartened by the support and enthusiasm. I know, and you know, how hard Jackie has been working and what a difference she has made in our schools. Now, tell your friends! We need a mandate for continued progress in Lowell!

Informed voters make the best decisions, so take the time to watch last night’s forum and upcoming ones to learn firsthand where council and school committee candidates stand on the issues. This schedule provides replay times for last night’s forum on channel 22, as well as the schedule for replays of an upcoming forum hosted by the Citywide Parent Council on Monday, 10/19 at 7 p.m., for school committee candidates only. Also, here is information on UTEC’s forum for council candidates only, which will be held on 10/22. For a look at coverage on last night’s forum that included questions for both city council and school committee candidates, check this article from Sun reporter Jen Myers.

Of all the things I must do to run for elected office, by far, the one I dislike the most is asking people for money. It is difficult, especially during tough financial times, but funding is absolutely necessary to run a good campaign—to pay for palm cards, lawn signs, ads, direct mail, and postage. Without funding, it is very difficult to get your name or message out to voters. My committee will host a fund-raising event at the Mambo Grill on Thursday, Oct. 15, from 5-7:30 (suggested donation $25) to benefit my campaign for re-election to the Lowell School Committee. Please join us. Even if you can’t make the event, you can still help.

One way I feel better about asking folks for money is to remind myself how hard I’m working to improve our schools. Whether it’s in the form of recent motions (so far 28 this term), or working with our state association (Mass. Assoc. of School Committees) to improve laws and regulations governing public education, or seeking to resolve concerns as I learn about them from parents, students, teachers, administrators, and neighbors, I am working hard and my efforts are making a difference. (More on that later.)

On Thursday, The Sun featured an article in its news section, claiming that Gail Cenik, office manager for the Election and Census Commission, didn’t understand choice voting: “It’s certainly not rocket science, but it may as well be for all the confusion swirling around proportional-representation voting these days,” began the article. “Even the head of the city’s election department doesn’t fully understand it. ‘If it passes, good luck to us. We’ll just have to figure it out,’ said Gail Cenik…” Well, I called Cenik on Friday regarding the story’s accuracy. Her response: “The article really didn’t convey what I said,” she noted, adding that it was taken out of context. “I’m not stupid. I understand the concepts and the reasons why people support it (choice voting). I don’t fully know how the tabulation works and that’s where I have to do my homework.” Cenik explained that getting those details has not been a priority since her office, which includes herself and two assistants, has had to verify the 8,000-plus signatures needed to put choice voting on the ballot; verify all other signatures required for the upcoming municipal election, including council, school committee and vocational seats; as well as prepare for upcoming special senate elections.

Apparently the complexity issue has cropped up in other arenas from those opposing a switch to a priority voting system. According to today’s Column regarding a debate on the issue on WCAP: “Former Lowell and Cambridge City Manager James Sullivan, who opposes the charter change, said it works in Cambridge because they are more “philosophical…When Fahlberg (Victoria Fahlberg, a lead proponent of choice voting) tried to challenge Sullivan’s comments, asking if he felt Lowell people were not able to comprehend the plan as well as Cambridge voters, host Warren Shaw, who was supposed to be an impartial moderator, shut her off.”

Is ranking your votes too complicated?? Check here for some details and stay tuned for more on this issue from me. On another note regarding media inaccuracy, check Mimi’s post at LiL today regarding a misleading Sun article on council candidate Ray Weicker’s recent vote on the Licensing Commission.

Last night’s forum offered a tense moment when challenger Fred Doyle, during his opening remarks, accused Councillor Milinazzo of misrepresenting the numbers on the Early Garage at the last candidates’ forum. Doyle was animated and speaking loudly, and the time for his three-minute opening remarks seemed to fly by as audience and fellow candidates watched with rapt attention. Unfortunately, I could only stay for the opening remarks of the remaining candidates, so I don’t know if there was any further discussion regarding his accusations. Today’s Sun reports on the evening, but doesn’t mention his outburst. The Sun article, however, mentions that two more councilors, Jim Milinazzo and Rodney Elliot, are on record as not supporting the meals tax. (Armand Mercier stated at Monday’s forum that he would not support it.) According to The Sun, last night Elliott said: “I know it is included in the budget, but we will have to go back to the drawing board … to make adjustments and reductions somewhere else.” Milinazzo’s plan for the deficit without revenue from a meals tax: more furloughs for city employees.

Last June, when councilors unanimously approved the city budget, $2 million in revenue was based on the meals tax, and 20% of that, or $400,000, went towards the city’s contribution to its schools. Since then, those numbers have changed due to the state raising the sales tax (more on that in a later post). From the perspective of the schools, we will be in a difficult bind if the city reduces its contribution now. Obviously, removing teachers from classrooms or staff furloughs are not viable options in the middle of a school year. The comments may play well as political sound bites, but the practical impacts are much more complex.