jackiedoherty.org

What I said in the previous post about the importance of the school committee subcommittees where much of the real work of the body takes place is also true for the city council.  By checking out the City of Lowell website under Government, I was able to find out how many (24, none of which appear to be ad hoc), what type and who is on the city council subcommittees.  (By the way, it would be nice to see the same kind of links for subcommittees, agendas and member biographies for the school committee as are available for the council.) 

The city council, much to their credit, does broadcast subcommittee and board meetings on LTC Channel 10, and these are available on the LTC website as streaming video.  I just watched a fascinating broadcast of the Finance Subcommittee from last week.  I guarantee you’ll become a fan of the City Auditor, Sheryl Wright, who has worked heroically to uncover bizarre accounting snafus and bookkeeping errors that go back years and sometimes decades (outstanding checks going back to the ’80s, IRS penalties for non-filing of W-2 forms, etc.).  It’s really worth watching, which is another reason why we need these meetings aired.

The newspaper got it wrong. The compromise motion by School Committeeman Dave Conway to open the superintendent interviews to the public was not about to fail, as today’s article asserts, but would have passed 4-3 with support from committee members Connie Martin, Dave Conway, Mayor Caulfield and myself. I was in the process of asking to amend the motion to ensure applicant confidentiality until they are interviewed and to have the interviews televised—when information regarding the Open Meeting Law came to light.

Speaking of television, today’s paper also makes no mention of last night’s lengthy discussion regarding broadcasting LHS subcommittee meetings, an issue that speaks to members’ true commitment to transparent government. The motion to broadcast LHS subcommittee meetings ultimately passed on a 4-3 vote with members Dave Conway, Regina Faticanti and Mayor Caulfield voting against. (Based on their comments last night, they apparently felt the cost of about $2,000 a year to televise the meetings was too high a price for transparency.) It was a long meeting and perhaps it’s unfair to expect the newspaper to cover every motion (which is why the superintendent interviews should be televised). Fortunately, with today’s technology and bloggers (LiL also wrote about the meeting), we don’t have to rely on one source for the news. Check LTC’s website for a streaming video of the meeting (not up yet) and see for yourself. 

Perhaps there will always be homeless among us, but how our city deals with this issue has long-term implications for our entire community. While I understand some councilors’ concern about the location of the Transitional Living Center and its impact on the revitalization of the city from a business perspective, the idea that moving these folks to Tewksbury will solve the problem is shortsighted. To think we can shift our homeless population, and the associated problems of vagrancy, substance abuse, poverty, and under employment will disappear is a dangerous oversimplification that makes no attempt to develop real solutions to this complex issue. Just as it is our responsibility to educate our children and care for our elderly, a city that does not attempt to mitigate the circumstances that result in homelessness is doomed to repeat past mistakes. Under the city manager’s effort to develop a 10-year plan to end homelessness in Lowell, several groups have been meeting for a year to address key issues, such as lack of job training, employment opportunities and housing, along with substance abuse, mental illness, poor health, and limited support systems and resources. The job and education group, for example, set as its challenge: “Providing individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless with the resources and support necessary to obtain and maintain a job with sufficient income to afford decent housing.” As complicated as this issue is, I prefer to focus on finding real long-term solutions rather than sweeping the problem into a more convenient corner and hoping it goes away.

You don’t need to be reminded that this Sunday is the Super Bowl or that Feb. 5 is Super Tuesday, when Massachusetts and many other states will hold their presidential primary elections—both super events. But perhaps you forgot that across the state, cities and towns are holding caucuses now to elect their delegates for the Massachusetts Democratic Convention, which will be held in Lowell on June 7. Also, regarding the Mill City, the Lowell caucus will be at the East End Club, 15 W. Fourth Street at 2 p.m. this Saturday—that’s tomorrow! For other caucus times and locations, check here. And one more reminder: Monday, Feb. 4, is the last day to apply for an absentee ballot. So don’t miss these super events: stay connected, be informed, and absolutely get out and vote!

Despite the fanfare about how base it is to vote for someone because of their sex or skin color, the fact is, we have never had a viable female or black candidate for president of the United States until this campaign. When I told my daughter, who was 10 at the time, that the race for Massachusetts governor would set a precedent—by electing the first black or the first woman to run the state—the look of incredulous horror on her face made me realize just how far our society has evolved. (Thank God.) I guess I’m one of those people who tries to vote the candidate and the issues because even though I wanted to support a woman as lieutenant governor, I felt Tim Murray was the best candidate, so he got my vote. That said, it infuriates me when the political pundits (and some bloggers) make reference to whether Hillary Clinton’s jacket makes her butt look big or which other candidates will kiss her hello, or if her assertiveness is b—-y and her emotion sincere—issues that don’t come up with male candidates. So over the next few days, we’ll take a look at these candidates for their merits, their message, and what we think they will do as leaders. That said, I admit to being pleased that the fifth district sent a woman and a good candidate to Washington—finally! 

Besides biting my nails and refraining from “I told you so” (okay maybe not that much refraining), this whole process of replacing Supt. Baehr has been a nightmare for me. Readers may recall I have been a strong supporter of our current superintendent and felt we had the best in the state—an opinion apparently shared by the Board of Education which named her as the only in-state finalist in their recent commissioner search. That, as they say, is the past. We now have to move forward and find a replacement equal to her professionalism, experience, and vision for our schools. First off, I agree with Dick Howe’s call for a compromise regarding the transparency of the search process and will look to develop one that will protect the confidentiality of candidates while satisfying the public’s right to be included. As I alluded to in an earlier post, we need to do whatever we can to attract, rather than dissuade, the best, most experienced candidates to apply and that means some confidentiality is necessary. I am also frustrated that the Citizens’ Screening Committee, as Margaret mentions below, will most likely not include fair representation of the families and children we serve. Despite my best efforts to have invested, diverse stakeholders at the table (the reason I supported the residency requirement for screening committee members and argued to expand the group), it doesn’t appear we will have more than a token minority presence. The good news is we’re not done yet. The next school committee meeting on Wed., Feb. 6, will include the introduction of the screening committee. At that time, it is my intention that we make some adjustments going forward, and I encourage you to attend that meeting at 7 pm in Council Chambers.

I want to be clear that while Jackie and I are co-bloggers and friends who often have similar interests and opinions, when I write or speak, it is from my own perspective.  As a former CPC chair, involved parent and citizen, the following are my impressions of Wednesday’s school committee meetings:

• Why wasn’t this discussion held by the whole school committee, rather than in subcommittee?  The entire  committee was present (along with 30 members of the public), yet only those on the subcommittee were allowed to vote on who would be chosen to be on the Citizens’ Screening Committee (for the new Superintendent).  I know that many issues are referred to subcommittee to be hashed out; however, it seems the School Committee has had a very light agenda since the beginning of the year and this important topic could have been covered in a regular session with all members voting.  Clearly, this is the only topic on peoples’ minds these days.  Having served on other boards, I truly believe that using subcommittees as a vehicle to do the real work of the body can be a dangerous pitfall.  In some cases, an ad hoc subcommittee is necessary, but never to the detriment of the overall involvement of the board.
• The above problem fed later complications.  For instance, as Jackie pointed out, two (TWO) members of the business community were easily voted onto the Search Committee (one from the Lowell Chamber of Commerce and one from the Lowell Plan); however, it was a major victory to add a third parent (someone to represent special ed parents who certainly need a voice in this proceeding) and the effort to get a second representative from the nonprofit community failed.  Why should local businesses take precedence over the local nonprofits who work directly with Lowell children and families?  There is a certain kow-towing to the business community that has not paid off in any direct benefit to our schools, not when you take into account the successful interventions and efforts on behalf of children made by such organizations as the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA, OneLowell and Lowell Community Health Center (plus many more)!  It also seems to have been forgotten that our nonprofits are the largest local employers. 
•  A further problem arose when it became clear that the subcommittee was simply paying lip-service to the idea of minority involvement on the search committee.  The only requisite minority involvement is required from the Citywide Parent Council.  Why not require that a minority business owner be given a seat? Why not ask that UML or MCC supply a minority candidate? Why can’t one of the two Lowell teachers be a minority?  I think the last committee had one minority member, and I am afraid it will be the same this time. 
• Finally, the open-closed meeting debate.  I agreed with the group who felt that every meeting should be conducted in the full view of the public. However, IF we had the assurance of a more diverse search committee, then I would feel less concerned about the group meeting in private.  The presence of diverse voices would give me some assurance that a fair process was underway.  Now we have neither.

Co-blogger Dick Howe writes a compelling post regarding his dispute with last night’s majority decision of the school committee to keep the names of the applicants for the superintendent position confidential until they become finalists. Although most of the nearly four-hour meeting was spent deliberating the makeup of the screening committee, this decision was the most divisive for the group, and for me, the most difficult. I had no doubts about adding a special education parent, a social worker, a veteran principal, and another teacher to the screening committee, which we ultimately did; I also felt strongly that we needed another representative from the non-profit sector, which I was unable to get. In the end, 13 citizens will be on the screening committee—four more than the original motions—in addition to adding former mayor Eileen Donoghue, who will serve as a non-voting chairperson. Like others, I want this process to be open and fair, which is one reason I fought for expanding the screening committee. That said, we absolutely must attract the best candidates. I sought advice from several credible sources who all told me it was imperative we ensure the confidentiality of the applicants if we were to attract experienced candidates. Just hours before last night’s meeting, I spoke to Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Mass. Assoc. of School Committees, about the process, the shortage of superintendents statewide (there are currently 38 openings), and the lack of candidates (we have only five applicants so far). Mr. Koocher was adamant about the confidentiality piece. I also discussed it with Supt. Baehr, who noted that we may get assistant superintendents to apply, but without confidentiality, we will limit the pool of sitting superintendents. Just like the city manager’s position over a year ago and the state’s recent search for an education commissioner, the names of applicants will be kept confidential until they become finalists; all finalists will be interviewed in public and televised live. At the end of the day, my job is to do what I believe is best for the education of our children. Right now, that means getting the most qualified, talented candidates to apply to be our next superintendent, having a fair process in place to assess those applicants, and choosing the best one.

For a listing of the makeup of the 13-member screening committee, see: more »

The personnel subcommittee will discuss makeup of a citizens screening committee for the superintendent search on Monday, Jan. 14, at 7 p.m., in conference rooms on the second floor of school headquarters on 155 Merrimack Street. The meeting is open to the public. At last night’s school committee meeting, the first of the new term, several citizens spoke about the need for more parent, minority, and nonprofit representation on the citizen’s screening committee, as well as a principal representative. The speakers were referring to two similar motions regarding makeup of the screening committee: For the actual text of those motions, see Jan. 8 post “New board to discuss search process.” Both motions were referred to the personnel subcommittee for further discussion before a decision is made at the formal school committee meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 16, in Council Chambers. In hindsight, I think it would have been better to have some discussion last night and I wish I had pushed it, but the approach to refer the motions to subcommittee is a standard practice, and I do not see it as an attempt to keep things from the public (as implied on LiL and Dick Howe’s blog). As the mayor stated, members heard citizens’ concerns last night and welcome continued input from as many stakeholders as possible as we go forward with this very important decision. Given the immediacy of Monday’s meeting, televising it will probably not be an option. Going forward, however, my sense is there will be a real attempt to schedule future meetings and interviews so that television coverage is available. Regardless of camera presence, these government meetings, as they have functioned for decades, will all be open to the public, and full citizen participation is not only welcome, it’s vital.

Tomorrow is the first meeting of the new Lowell School Committee. A key item on the agenda is a motion proposing a process for hiring a new superintendent–actually there are two similar motions by different school committee members (for more on that, see Sunday’s Column). Both motions call for creating a screening committee of community members to interview candidates. There are, however, differences regarding the number and makeup of the screening committee as well as other factors in the process. As with all school committee meetings, tomorrow’s agenda includes an opportunity for public participation on any agenda item. To speak at a school committee meeting, you must register by 2 p.m. on the day of the meeting by calling the superintendent’s office at 978-937-7614. Current Supt. Karla Brooks Baehr, whose contract expires in June, is not seeking renewal of her contract. She was interviewed yesterday as one of three finalists for the State Commissioner of Education position. Hiring a new superintendent is the most important task facing the new school committee and will impact the education of Lowell’s 14,000 public schoolchildren for years to come. For the actual wording of the two motions on the proposed search process, check:  more »