jackiedoherty.org

Watching the democrats gather for their unity breakfast (sans food?) this morning at the Doubletree Hotel, I couldn’t help but notice that Massachusetts’ first African-American governor, Deval Patrick, was flanked by the state’s first female attorney general, Martha Coakley, and the newly elected democratic 5^th congressional district nominee, Niki Tsongas—the first woman likely to represent the district since Edith Nourse Rogers left Washington more than 40 years ago. As Coakley explained to the crowd of well wishers and media, “We’ve said it for a long time, we need a woman in the House…and that’s going to be Niki Tsongas!” While, the changing face of politics in the Commonwealth mirrors the national scene with viable candidates such as Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton taking center stage, the story is not simply one of gender or race. Perhaps as voters, we have evolved enough to recognize that good voting decisions must be based on ideology and issues. As Eileen Donoghue said this morning during her pledge to support Tsongas, “Over these last few months, we spent a lot of time together, but we never forgot our principles.” Those principles, such as improving healthcare access for all Americans, ending the war in Iraq, and working to address environmental issues, are a core part of the democratic agenda—with varying ideas about how to tackle them. This morning, I was struck not only by the changing face of political candidates, but also by the different principles expressed by the nominees from each party. I heard Jim Ogonowski earlier today on WCAP express his reasons for not supporting immediate withdrawal from Iraq or any policy on illegal immigrants that would allow them to become citizens. He clearly is an articulate person with his own principles and ideas about how to take this country forward. In the end, the voters must decide who best represents their vision for the America we want to live and raise our families in. That candidate, no matter what face she-he wears, will be the one to go to Washington and represent us; our job is to pay attention, be informed, and vote!

I read with interest the Sun’s article in Saturday’s paper about parents being required to attend a two-hour class as part of new regulations for junior drivers that also increased the hours of supervised driving time. I was aware that during their first six months of driving, junior drivers cannot transport passengers under 18 years of age unless they are siblings. I was not aware, however, about the zero tolerance policy until just recently, when I learned about one Lowell teen’s experience. This young woman is 17 years old and an honor student at LHS—a nice, responsible kid, who is also involved in sports (not that any of this matters in terms of her driving). She was stopped for speeding last spring because she was going 8 miles over the speed limit on Varnum Avenue. She appealed the ticket, lost, and was required to pay a $100 fee, which resulted in two points being added to her insurance rating for the next six years. My insurance agent informs that because it was her first offense, the two points will not increase her premiums, but will make her ineligible for discount credits good drivers earn. Later, the young woman received a letter in the mail informing her that her license is suspended for 90 days and that she is required to attend two courses: a driver attitudinal retraining class and a state course against road rage. She will also have to retake her written and road driver’s tests and pay a $500 reinstatement fee. Needless to say, the young woman and her family are reeling from these penalties. According to the Registry’s website, 33% of all 16-year-old drivers and 19% of 17-year-olds will be involved in a serious crash. As my insurance agent explains it, the state is serious about curbing teen driving fatalities, and the increased penalties are one way to get junior drivers to understand this. As a parent of a 14-year-old, the issue of teen drivers is on the near horizon for me, but it is also one that impacts us all. So, what do you think? Has the state gone too far? 

Okay, maybe my expectations from journalism class decades ago are too high for a local paper. You know, things like accuracy, balance, and objectivity—the stuff they teach aspiring journalists. But I get tired of the Sun’s same old song of negativity about the Lowell Public Schools. No matter what, they seem to find a way to knock the district. Case in point: Treading Water on Recruiting Teachers, an editorial in Tuesday’s paper, wails about the lack of innovative programs to recruit teachers amid a national shortage of educators: “It’s hard to believe that a school district like Lowell, with a $138 million budget, can’t find $200,000 to start a program that will entice new teachers to work here,” claims the unnamed writer. Morph back in time to March 16, 2005 when the same paper (same writer?) published: Another Entitlement, an editorial that slammed the schools for accepting a $1.5 million grant to launch a teacher academy and mentoring program designed (you guessed it) to attract and retain new teachers. What was the Sun’s problem with the grant? Accepting it meant the district committed to continue the program after the three-year grant money ended, and as the editorial stated, “In today’s tight budgetary times, the program is a luxury.” (Margaret, co-author of this blog, wrote a response to the 2005 editorial that was published a few days later; you can read it here.) In addition to slamming the district two years ago for developing a strategy (and grant funding) to attract the best teachers and then claiming this week that the district lacks innovation in this area, the paper completely ignores the mentoring program and its successes. A national model, Lowell’s teacher-mentoring program has proven effective by enabling the district to retain 87% of its first-year teachers and 95% of its second-year teachers. Equally important, it has helped the district make huge strides in its recruiting efforts. Last Monday when Lowell faculty returned to school, every classroom had a teacher except for one math position at an alternative school—representing 80 new hires for this school year alone. Compare that to 2001 when school started with a shortage of 50 classroom teachers and it’s clear Lowell’s mentoring program is making a difference. That seems worthy of at least a mention in the Sun, don’t you think? (More details on the mentoring program to come.)

Talk about multi-tasking: If you didn’t catch it, The Boston Globe had a feature in its Northwest Section on working moms that included a nice write-up on Lowell mother and artist Emily Stewart. The article, however, did not tell the complete story. Stewart, in addition to painting extraordinary murals, is a founding member of the Highlands Chapter of Stand for Children, a fierce triathlon competitor, an involved parent at the Bailey School, and an avid gardener. It just goes to show that not all Lowell notables who get covered by the Boston media are politicians, congressional candidates, or crime-involved folks. For a link to the series click here, and scroll down to the article, titled “Painter credits mother–in-law with making it work.”

Today’s Globe, on the front page of the Northwest section, features stories on two prominent Lowellians: Acting Superintendent of Police Ken Lavallee, who is the leading candidate for the permanent police chief position, and former City Councilor George Ramirez, who stepped down from the council last week to work for the governor. In addition, 5^th Congressional Candidate Patrick Murphy was profiled this morning on Boston’s National Public Radio affiliate, WBUR-90.9 FM. (WBUR may run the piece, Bricklayer Seeks House Seat, again later today or you can check here for the audio file and text.) The youngest candidate in this congressional race, Murphy has several factors that distinguish him from the crowd, such as running without pursuing or even accepting campaign donations, and if elected, he says he will not accept health insurance until all Americans have it. Check out his website for more about this unusual candidate and his positions. 

I read this Globe headline last Thursday: “Bush vows to veto children’s health insurance bill” and felt sick to my stomach, literally. What kind of a country are we? I know we value individualism, free speech, and competition, but don’t we also value our children? The fact that President Bush is not inclined to cover low-income uninsured children reminds me of President Reagan’s claim that ketchup counted as a vegetable in school lunches. (Are there people who actually think this is okay?) Tonight, my sister told me about an old friend who has just been laid off. She suspects it was due to his age (late 50s), and health concerns (he’s had a heart attack and other issues). When I asked if he would lose his health insurance, she wasn’t sure—probably, he’s too young for Medicare and has pre-existing conditions. Providing healthcare with for-profit companies and funding it on the backs of employers is like funding our public schools solely on property taxes: it’s not effective or fair. Anybody else see a correlation between healthcare for all, public schools, and the postal service? If the government can run the post office well enough to get my letter to California in two days for 41 cents, it can provide decent healthcare for its citizens. Perhaps we should let the postmaster general run it to make sure the service is superior and efficient.

I can’t get over my bitterness that members of our legislature, led by Sal DiMasi, caved in to the business community and seem to have squashed the optional hotel/meals tax provision of the Governor’s Municipal Partnership Act (Is it over? I’ve been out of town and, despite much googling, I can’t seem to figure out if it’s completely dead or not).  I think the Corporate Tax Loophole portion of the bill is still alive, but it looks like it may suffer the same fate. 

Even worse is the prognosis by my new favorite columnist, John Edward, who in yesterday’s Lowell Sun gives us more of his refreshing viewpoint on taxes.  Despite numerous studies that show that taxes are not a primary factor when choosing where to locate, politicians continue to resist closing corporate tax loopholes and to advocate for corporate tax incentives to boost job growth.  According to Edward, all the candidates for the 5th Congressional district support the latter notion. Yet, consider this from Edward’s column:

“Surveys that ask business leaders how they choose a location do not identify taxes as a primary motivator.  Statistical analyses of the impact of state tax incentives show very little contribution to the economy.  In fact, the economic benefits of such incentives are less than the lost tax revenue.”

 Finally, Edward points out that Massachusetts has “one of the lowest corporate tax burdens in the country.”  As for the loopholes targeted by the Municipal Partnership Act, Edward exempts emerging industries (such as nanotechnology), but:

“In contrast, the tax loopholes the governor wants to close are unintended benefits that companies have learned to exploit.  They reward clever accounting rather than innovative product development.”

Every now and then, Kendall Wallace renews his personal campaign to replace the elected school committee with an appointed board, as he did in his Saturday Chat on June 8th.  I have never heard a compelling argument from Mr. Wallace in favor of this change and remain unconvinced by his latest concern, which seems to be that there may not be enough candidates for the job in the upcoming election.  So far, none of the incumbents have bowed out and there are two challengers, so his fears seem unfounded.  If a seat opens up, it is likely that other contenders might join the race.   However, my reasons for being against this idea are as follows:

•  This has been tried in very few places and the results are inconclusive.
•  The cities who have gone to an appointed school committee (Boston is one) all have ’strong mayor’ governments; thus the mayor is responsible to the voters.  Since Lowell does not have this system, who would do the appointing and to whom would they be accountable?
• Given the perception in Lowell up until recently that board appointments are all about who you know and to whom you are related, it seems wrong to put the schools in the position where patronage could take precedence over student needs.
• Who will speak out for the schools if the board members all owe their positions to someone at city hall? The elected school committee puts the interests of the schools first, which is their job. 
• School committee members are visible in the community and accessible to parents, because they are elected officials; an appointed board would have less incentive to be connected and available to the people they serve.
• Finally, democracy seems to be an acceptable way to appoint our city council, why not the school committee which has responsibility for 15,000 school children, 23 schools and $136 million dollars?

Two weeks ago, several of us from the CPC, Stand for Children and the School Committee went before the city council at the budget hearing to make a case for the schools.  Naturally, we had been blogging freely on the topic for over a week, ever since we realized that the schools were going to take a big hit under the Manager’s plan.  As we listened to the Manager’s budget presentation, I realized that many of our arguments were being preempted, and it occurred to me that by blogging we had alerted others to our line of attack, giving them a chance to form counter-arguments.  As I sat there, rewriting my speech in response to what I was hearing, I wondered if in these situations blogging was such a good idea. more »

How sweet it is! To (finally) not be confined to learning about presidential candidates based solely on their campaign ads and the established media, which often tends to focus more on polls and sound bites than the issues that really concern us. Enter the age of interactive internet and all that has changed. Tonight, for the first time ever, seven democratic candidates for president will be answering questions in a “virtual town hall” that will be streamed live over the internet beginning at 7 p.m. Pacific Time. The questions for tonight’s forum will focus on the Iraq War, but this is only the first of three presidential-candidate forums to be developed and hosted by the activist group MoveOn.org. Based on membership input, the other two forums will focus on healthcare and energy. 

Given the technology of today’s world, the concept of citizen involvement has changed dramatically and it couldn’t have happened at a better time; it is absolutely critical to the success of a democracy that citizens are informed, engaged, and voting. Yet recent trends in voter turnout, especially in local elections, have shown we are desperately in need of a shakeup to get people re-connected to the political process. If my memory is correct, last week’s local election in Chelmsford had about an 18% turnout of eligible voters participating (pathetic and terrifying). In Lowell, I think it’s around 25% of eligible voters have elected our leaders in the recent past.

The use of interactive technology not only allows citizens more direct access to candidates and their views, but it allows us to shape the focus of the discussion, raise the level of discourse, and hopefully put the established media on notice that we require fuller, more meaningful candidate coverage from them or we will turn to other sources. So join in the process tonight, either by participating in one of over a 1,000 small-group gatherings to listen to the forum with others–Locations within a 30-mile radius of my home included Littleton, N. Reading, Hollis, Cambridge, and Boston–or simply check in from your own home. MoveOn will conduct polls afterwards so voters can share their thoughts on the candidates.