jackiedoherty.org

Today’s Boston Globe had an interesting column by Adrian Walker in support of Election Day Registration. I agree with Walker: “The real issue here isn’t lack of money, or fraud. It’s inertia. There just isn’t any sense of urgency about voting issues. The way people register and vote now has worked just fine for the people who already hold office. Why change it now?” In an earlier post, I discussed reasons why Massachusetts should join many other states, including neighbors New Hampshire and Maine, and allow people to register AND vote on election day. According to this New England Cable News interview between Chet Curtis and Avi Green, executive director of MassVOTE, a non-partisan voters rights organization; Massachusetts ranks 21^st in voter turnout. (Green does a decent job of addressing opposing concerns during the interview.)

As our own recent local elections have shown, we in the Merrimack Valley are not strangers to voter apathy. What is strange, however, is the apparent silence from the Lowell Sun on this issue. Despite its regular lament on poor voter turnout, which is often accompanied by a suggestion for an appointed school committee as if that would induce more folks to vote (a pet peeve of mine), the local paper has not written one editorial on Election Day Registration. Meanwhile, the bill languishes while the clock is ticking to pass this legislation in time for the upcoming presidential election. I heard our own State Senator Steve Panagiatakos is working out a compromise to make it happen—thanks Steve! But from where I sit, S2514 should pass: We’re looking at voter increases of about 250,000 more young people, minorities, and perhaps even those who had given up on the system. The fact is, without voters, we don’t have a democracy, and this bill will help bring voters back. Then again, we could just go to appointed school committees (selectmen, councilors, whatever) and forget the whole election thing…

LiL has also written on this issue with 30 comments responding to this post.

Fellow bloggers LiL and Richard Howe both post today on the recycling debate before the Lowell City Council. At issue is the fact that the city recycles at a rate of only 10% which results in a $4.4 million deficit in the cost of running the program. To recoup these expenses and encourage recycling, Lowell should do a combination of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)—one bag a week per household with additional bags costing $1.50 each—along with a slight increase in the base fee (from $100 to $150 annually). This way, the city’s recycling program will break even while also encouraging more folks to recycle. Consider this: Brockton, a city similar in size and demographics to Lowell, recently instituted PAYT along with an annual base fee of $280; initial results show improvement, with 23% recycling. Worcester, a much larger city although also similar in demographics, has been charging PAYT since 1988 with great results—44% recycling. In Lowell, landlords pay the base fee for each unit, condo residents do not pay for recycling but do contribute to the general fund which is impacted by the deficit, and there is no overall requirement to recycle. Lowell should have an ordinance that mandates everyone recycle because even though it’s the right thing to do, unfortunately that’s not enough motivation for some folks. (Nor is the fact that it will save us all money in the long run.) Disclosure: My husband, Jay Mason, is a member of the city manager’s Green Building Commission and has been actively involved in the citizens’ movement to improve recycling in Lowell.

In what was expected to be a photo opportunity to announce funds for summer jobs turned spontaneously engaging as Governor Deval Patrick left the stage and ventured into the audience to answer random questions from Lowell High School seniors. After making his points about the need for more jobs for kids and his commitment to helping with that—which included telling students to take out their cell phones and record this number (866-968-8461), he politely answered selected-in-advance student questions read by Senior Class President Natalie Petit. Once he finished answering those questions, however, he surprised everyone by jumping off the stage and moving through the audience, taking questions from randomly selected students on a variety of topics.

Issues raised by the students included dropout rates, gas prices, cost of living in Mass., income gap and middle-class squeeze, environment, gay marriage rights, violence in the streets, lack of scholarships, and the economy. Other questions included asking the Governor for a date to the prom (he replied he’s married), if he can dance (he said yes but that he wouldn’t demonstrate), and what it was like being the first African-American governor of Massachusetts (“way cool”). In his remarks, the Governor restated some messages that had been key to his campaign–that is: We must try new things and see our stake in each other’s success.” He spoke of revitalizing a sense of community, the idea of service and connection with our neighbors. For me, I couldn’t have been prouder of our students, who represented LHS and the city with respect, humor and intelligence, and our Governor. For a summary of his responses to some of their questions, check: more »

My brother once told me, “act in haste, repent at leisure,” a proverb that seems especially appropriate given last night’s school committee meeting where the mayor was unhappy with the board for amending the superintendents’ contracts during his absence. I regret not waiting for the mayor, especially now that I’m aware it was important to him; fortunately, the issue can be revisited and he can weigh in—nothing has been signed, the matter will be re-opened for discussion.

Regarding the committee voting unanimously on April 2 to add language to Dr. Baehr’s contract, I believe it was the fair thing to do. (I am writing for myself only as I do not presume to know the intentions of my colleagues.) The original severance language of her contract read: “At the time of the Superintendent’s retirement, death, or termination by the Committee, the Superintendent or her estate will receive 100% of accrued vacation and one third (33 1/3%) payment of all unused sick leave.” Because Dr. Baehr was neither retiring, getting fired, nor dead, the lack of language to address the actual terms of her departure—such as resignation or non-renewal of contract—precluded her getting reimbursed for her unused vacation and sick days. (I have since been told she was always eligible to get paid for the 39.5 unused vacation days, totaling $26,921.62.) The issue that remains, however, is without amending the language to include the specific terms of her departure, she would not receive payment for one third of her unused sick days or $23,397.95.   Dr. Baehr provided eight years of excellent service to the Lowell Public Schools at a salary well below market rate when she could have gone anywhere and earned more. She stayed here, committed to our students and staff, and worked relentlessly to improve the quality of education our children receive: We will benefit from the results of those efforts for years to come. To not pay her for unused sick days she would have gotten if we’d fired her, or if we had appreciated her more and she’d stayed until retirement as was her original plan, is not only unfair, it’s ungrateful.

While at the State House with other Stand for Children members advocating for resources yesterday, it occurred to me as legislators gave us their “doom and gloom” response that they must sit through dozens of these meetings, especially during budget time. Yesterday’s Boston Globe article about the corporate tax changes Stand sees as vital revenue for the state’s education needs illustrates the point further by citing pro-business groups such as the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation and the Boston Chamber of Commerce warning against these revenue initiatives. It’s no surprise these groups do not want to pay more taxes, even closing unfair corporate tax loopholes such as combined reporting and check the box without looking for a “give back” in terms of tax-rate reductions. Similarly, the tobacco industry doesn’t want more taxes on cigarettes, nor does the oil industry (which enjoys record profits as gas prices skyrocket) want to provide its fair share to government (less than one percent of the federal budget funds education). These groups spend lots of money, run scare campaigns, and hire professionals to lobby our elected leaders who must make difficult decisions regarding raising revenue and who gets limited funds—yet the needs do not go away and the costs continue to rise.

Given that context, it’s obvious why 400 Stand members speaking to 39 state senators and 48 representatives and their staff offers an important perspective. Stand’s purpose yesterday was to advocate for our legislators to make children and the future of the Commonwealth a priority by closing corporate tax loopholes without cutting corporate tax rates and investing that revenue into education, infrastructure, and reduction of the property tax burden on low-income homeowners. At the end of the day, if we do not speak up for the children and citizens of our state, who will?

I am an activist: I actively work to promote positive change in our world. Often those efforts tend to be on a local level, but not always. Last week, I travelled to Boston to ask my state delegation to support election-day registration (see earlier post). Tomorrow, I’ll return to the State House with a busload of folks from the Lowell chapter of Stand for Children as well as members from 40 other communities to advocate for increased state funds for education.  In particular, the Stand group will ask legislators to close corporate tax loopholes without providing corporate “give backs” through phased-in tax cuts. Among other concerns, Stand’s position is to take revenue from closing tax loopholes and put an additional $108 million into education, as well as use the balance for property tax assistance for low-income residents. According to their Fact Sheet: Corporations are contributing less in state revenue (in 1960s corporate taxes accounted for 30% of state revenue—currently it’s about 12%); in 41 other states, corporations pay a greater percentage in state and local taxes (Ernst & Young study); and closing corporate tax loopholes levels playing field for small businesses. In addition, studies by the Mass. Budget and Policy Center and the Economic Institute indicate that investing in education and infrastructure is the way to promote economic growth, NOT cutting revenue desperately needed for public services.

Stand’s Day on the Hill tomorrow will include members speaking with 39 senators and 48 representatives and their staff. In addition, the group will hear from Paul Reville, chair of the board of education and education secretary; Senator Augustus, vice chair of the senate education committee; Chris Gabrieli, chair of Mass. 2020; and Senator Creem, chair o f senate revenue committee. It’s not too late to join us; we’ll register at the State House Gardner Auditorium 9:30-10:15. There’s also room on the bus from Lowell, which leaves from Showcase Cinemas, 32 Reiss Avenue, at 8:45.

Perhaps I’ve lowered my expectations, but I’m not surprised that in today’s Column, the Sun ignited a few sparks from the recent school personnel subcommittee meeting and left out the substance; after all, inflating controversy to sell papers is their bread and butter, and they only have so many column inches. My take on the personnel subcommittee meeting is that it was constructive and absolutely necessary to remind the entire board of its roles, rules, and responsibilities under law. For instance, we will not tolerate another breach in the confidentiality of executive session, self-reporting to the Attorney General if necessary. Also, while it is okay to “make inquiry” such as ask questions about an outside agency’s effectiveness, it is not acceptable to “instruct or engage in” the operations of any school, such as coordinating an event, assigning staff, or telling a principal what to do. Also, concerns brought to an individual school committee member should be investigated through the superintendent. Asking for reports, forming a task force, or directing any school activity or expense must be done by board consensus, which requires a majority vote of the school committee. As usual, the newspaper chose to focus on the negative—minor disagreements—rather than the positive outcome of the school committee asking for and receiving guidelines for future behavior that will allow it to be a more effective elected body.

On another note, as fellow bloggers have mentioned, televising the personnel subcommittee meeting would have eliminated the public’s reliance on the newspaper and given folks a clear view of what happened. (It’s called 20/20 hindsight for a reason.) That said, it would be great to see support for televised school subcommittee meetings not only from bloggers, but from the City, and from Lowell Telecommunications Corporation itself (board members paying attention?). One major step to get more school subcommittees televised is to wire the Mayor’s Reception Room for live telecast and provide the staff to broadcast the meetings. A few months ago, four school committee members re-affirmed a motion from last fall to broadcast LHS subcommittee meetings live from the high school studio, but it is a limited solution that only impacts one subcommittee and relies on student volunteers, as well as a communications club with no paid faculty advisor. It will also cost the school department about $2K over a year (the reason stated for the three dissenting votes) and still, it’s only one subcommittee. Clearly, more transparency in school governance will provide more informed, engaged citizens—something we must all work toward.

MassVOTE is inviting people to join them at the State House on Tuesday, April 8, in support of S.2514, which would allow Election Day Registration.  This bill makes sense. Everyone complains about the lack of turnout at elections, so why not make it a little easier on people? Sure, democracy doesn’t have to be easy, but life is busy and confusing enough. Last November, I was urging a young friend of my son’s to vote in the local elections. Well,  he had been away at school and had never gotten around to registering and by that time had missed the cut-off date. Why choose an arbitrary cut-off day that’s weeks before the election (I think it’s 20 days in Mass) when technology makes it easy for us to streamline the process and allow people to just show up, register and vote. Seven states, including New Hampshire and Maine, have election day registration. Statistics show an increase in voter turnout in those states: for example, in 2004, four of these (ME, NH, WI and MN) were in the top ten for voter turnout.  The League of Women Voters reports that in 2006, five of the seven were in the top ten. There seems to be no evidence of increased voter fraud associated with same-day registration. In addition, same-day registration could motivate more young people to vote. I’m pretty sure my son’s friend would have voted last year and gotten into the habit of voting if the process had been more convenient. If you are interested in joining a group from Lowell to go down to the State House on Tuesday, contact us for information. At the very least, contact your representative by email or telephone and convey your support of same-day registration.

Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker quotes Suffolk D.A. Ralph Martin’s decision not to pursue public office further—particularly a run for Boston mayor in 2009—as being “…all about the tensions between being attracted to public issues and critical opportunities and the restraint it puts on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from a very personal perspective.” I can relate. This issue has been on my mind as I am immersed in my third term on the Lowell School Committee while also participating in the inaugural class of Emerge Massachusetts, an organization designed to educate, encourage, and inspire political leadership in women.

Last week the organization, the newest sister of Emerge America which currently spans seven states, held its kick-off event on the 38^th floor of the posh law offices of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo at One Financial Center. With a birds-eye view of Boston’s State House, Custom Clock Tower, and the harbor, it was a heady experience to join more than 100 people—mostly women—gathered to support Emerge’s efforts in the Bay State. Among the attendees were some of the Commonwealth’s most noted political women: such as Representative Niki Tsongas, the first Massachusetts congresswoman in over two decades; and Attorney General Martha Coakley and Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral, both the first women in the state to hold these positions. Also present was State Senator Pam Resor, who is retiring at her term’s end after decades of public service; State Representative Cory Atkins; former Green-Rainbow Party governor candidate Grace Ross; and Barbara Lee of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, an organization known for its generous funding of initiatives around women in politics, and contemporary art.

As someone who has struggled with my own family responsibilities and personal goals amid the demands of political life, it has been amazing to participate in the Emerge program (more on that later). It was also inspiring to attend the kick-off event and hear from accomplished women who discussed their own fears, challenges, and rewards regarding life in politics. As Attorney General Coakley put it, “Women must get in the game and play if we are going to make a real difference in our communities.” Clearly, we need more of us in the game, not only so our voices are heard and impact our communities, but so our daughters are given a path to follow, and our sons are taught to value women’s implicit role in governing. 

The front page of today’s New York Times has an article about Mass. Governor Deval Patrick’s struggles with House Speaker Sal DiMasi, claiming the Democratic governor’s inability to accomplish his goals in a heavily Democratic legislature are due to the personality-power conflicts between the two elected officials.  The article claims the struggles between the men are personal, are beyond a difference of opinion about gambling, and have severely limited the governor, who ran on a promise of hope and change, in his efforts to move his initiatives forward.  The article quotes Patrick as saying, “We’re going to keep working on it until we get a Democratic process that’s functioning.”

As someone who continues to support Governor Patrick’s vision for the Commonwealth, I am concerned to see resistance to many of the governor’s plans around revenue raising (his Municipal Partnership Act for instance) that seem to be more about power plays than what’s best for the people of Massachusetts. I’m not at the State House, but from what I’ve heard, representatives are pressured to vote with the Speaker, records are kept of those who don’t, and punitive measures, such as losing chairmanships and getting offices relocated to the basement, are possible consequences for these perceived betrayals. If that is the case, it is a sad testament to what democracy has become in the birthplace of the ideals that formed our government. I agree with Patrick—we need a Democratic process that’s functioning, and that requires representatives who are willing to vote their conscience over the current power structure.