jackiedoherty.org

Over on Left in Lowell, they’ve been paying close attention to what is going on at the city council meetings, but let’s not forget the important business underway on the school committee. Tonight, the members of the Superintendent Search Committee will be introduced, and there are several motions regarding the Superintendent Search process that are worth your notice.  One is that all interviews (not just those of the finalists) be held in a public forum.  Another is to extend the deadline for applications for the position to February 29th (the original deadline was February 1st).  There is also a motion to discuss the televising of the Lowell High subcommittee meetings.  Following the lead of the City Council who now televises all of their subcommittee meetings, this was started as a pilot program last Fall.  So far, only one meeting has been televised, but it was an excellent way for parents to see the real work the committee does that affects the high school.  I hope they don’t give up on this effort before it has been fully tested! 

If you can’t get downtown tonight, tune in to Channel 10 at 7:00 pm and see what happens.

Jackie talks about being more pragmatic in our political choices as we get older, see below.  I feel the same way, but my pragmatism has taken a different turn. George Packer’s article, “The Choice,” in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker points out that:

the alternatives facing democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts–a woman and a black man.

None of these polarities resonate much for me in this race.  I think Clinton has had to fight for everything she has gained and is probably in some ways as much of an outsider as Obama.  Experience can be gained and change, while needed, is hard.  And, I cannot cast my vote simply on the base of gender or race.  Packer describes the most important difference between the two as between their “rival conceptions of the Presidency.”

Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government.  Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator.

Based on the above, which I think is an accurate assessment, I’d be voting for Clinton; but my gut is telling me to vote for Obama – because I think he can get elected. It’s not fair, but many people seem to have a visceral hatred of Hillary, which has little to do with her record or qualifications.  So, I think I’m going to vote for Obama, but I won’t really know until I fill out that little black box later today…

I don’t know about your household, but in my family we have something I call “Post-Football Syndrome” (PFS). No matter how last night had turned out, it would have been difficult for certain family members because the end of the football season is always a tragic loss, often accompanied by feelings of emptiness, nothing good on tv, and a restless malaise that may last for months. The fact that the Patriots went down in such an upsetting loss adds to the intensity of the PFS mourning because the dream remains unfulfilled, the history-making moment gone forever. All that’s left are empty Sunday afternoons stretching endlessly until life begins anew in August. 

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!

Now you can take a quiz to figure out who to vote for! Visit www.glassbooth.org and give it a try.  This quiz is more sophisticated than I expected since it has a multi-dimensional approach:  first you rank the issues by assigning points to the ones most important to you, then you answer a series of questions on those issues.  (Thanks to Mike01824 who provided this interesting site in his comment on a LeftinLowell post.)  I took the quiz and ended up with Mike Gravel (the guy from Alaska? Is he still in the race?), then Edwards, then Clinton.  My husband, who has been leaning toward McCain (oh, oh) ended up with Obama, Gravel and Clinton.  A family member who voted for Bush last time was shown to be a supporter of Kucinich! Even if you don’t take it seriously, it makes for a fun party-game.

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! 

Media ink swirled around last Saturday’s quad wrestling match as area newspapers pitched different views regarding whether Lowell High School’s wrestling team actually won the meet or simply tied against Timberlane. Prior to Saturday’s meet, both teams were undefeated, Division I champions for their states: Red Raiders in Massachusetts and Timberlane Owls in New Hampshire. After both soundly won against the other two participants in the four-way competition (Connecticut teams from Ledyard and Berlin), the two champions faced each other in a grueling competition that ended with a 27-27 score—and that’s where the controversy begins. According to MIAA rules used in Massachusetts’ wrestling competitions (but not followed in other states apparently), a tie score remains that for both teams. By Federation standards, the final outcome of a tie score is determined by gaining points for the number of additional pins a team gets. Since the Red Raiders had pins by James Downing and Victor DeJesus, and the Owls only had one by Dylan Lockard, the Lowell team picked up another point, winning the meet 28-27. What the Lowell Sun termed a “gutsy victory” was portrayed in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune as “Owls settle for apparent tie; Lowell claims win.” The Boston Globe also mentioned the meet, calling it a win for the Red Raiders with “strong performances” by Lowell students. Obviously, it would have been better if the coaches discussed the specific rules prior to the meet, but according to the Tribune: “Steve Tassini, a MIAA wrestling commissioner, claims that it should only remain a tie if both schools are MIAA schools,” which, of course, wasn’t the case since Timberlane is in New Hampshire. I’m happy to claim it a Lowell win, the first against Timberlane since 2003. For more discussion on the meet and all things wrestling, check out this blog.

I seem to remember just a few years ago when sneers and laughter greeted the idea of being able to email the City Manager or anyone at City Hall. Now, not only can we email those on the City Council or the School Committee, but City Manager Bernie Lynch has started his own blog! (Click here for initial entry or see blogroll to the right).  This is not breaking news: Lynch started blogging on January 11, and I first heard about it on richardhowe.com. Since then I’ve been checking in and noticed that he’s posting pretty steadily, getting a good amount of comments and, more important, is replying to all of them.  Last Sunday, he received a mention in the Globe under the Community Briefing section of Globe Northwest (for some reason, I can’t find a link to it).  They give the blog address (www.lowellma.wordpress.com) and quote Lynch as saying:   

I see the blog as another means to get information out to the public in keeping with our ongoing commitment to provide our residents with timely and relevant information regarding the city and the operation of its government.

I see it as another example of the new transparancy in our local government, and I applaud the Manager for his efforts and innovation.  

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.