jackiedoherty.org

Today’s Globe features a column, “Progress Adjourned,” in which Kevin Cullen sarcastically writes about not planning to write again, at least not formally, for the rest of the year, as a dig to state representatives taking a break until they reconvene in January. The Globe, a proponent in the charter-school movement, has pressed the issue, particularly the posturing between Governor Patrick and House Speaker DeLeo, as well as its own “get back to work” demand regarding the House delay in voting on the Education Reform Act the Senate passed last week. (Senate, No. 2216). Count me in the crowd who wants important decisions made in a timely fashion that impact the safety and welfare of residents, particularly those involving the budget and the education of our children. Those decisions must be based, however, on good information, adequate discussion, and an opportunity to hear from major stakeholders, which is why, as a school committee member, I am relieved we have time to learn more about the Senate version of the bill and discuss it with lawmakers.

The Senate Bill “An Act Relative to Education Reform” begins with this preamble: “Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to drive forthwith innovation into school districts and turnaround underperforming schools, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.” I spoke to several representatives on Friday who had not seen the final version of the bill, which is 75+ pages long and includes numerous reiterations of some 95 amendments, never mind begun to decipher what its impact could be on the public schools. If the next several weeks are devoted to looking closely at the many implications of the bill, researching ways to improve it, and listening to stakeholders with the ultimate goal of passing a bill to improve public education for all students in Massachusetts, a state known nationally for its exceptional school system, I am fully in favor of taking the time to get it right.

Some may think it’s excessive, but today’s Boston Globe reports that Bud Adams, owner of the Tennessee Titans, was fined $250K for making obscene gestures to fans after his team won against the Buffalo Bills last Sunday. According to the article, after his team’s 41-17 victory, Adams made the gesture from his luxury suite and again from the field. As mentioned here in a recent post on media incivility, the nature of public discourse as a whole is steadily declining. Whether you attribute this hefty fine as arrogance on the part of the National Football League or Adams getting his just desserts for “conduct detrimental to the NFL,“ the notion that it is acceptable for an adult (Adams is 86 years old) to make an obscene gesture to fans of the losing team completely contradicts what we teach our student athletes about sportsmanship. At Lowell High School, where students are familiar with the thrill of victory (on Saturday, our boys cross-country team took first place in the Eastern Mass. Division Championship) as well as the agony of defeat, we expect respectful behavior whether you win or lose. It’s called being a good sport, and if a quarter-of-a-million-dollar fine helps Adams learn the lesson, albeit a little late in the game, I’m all for it. By the way, best wishes to our cross-country student athletes as they compete in the All-State Finals this weekend.

Today’s Boston Globe has an op-ed about the need to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine amid the current lack of civility in today’s media. That point should resonate with anyone who pays attention to Lowell politics and our own media outlets, particularly our local newspaper. (Local radio, some blogs, and internet comments especially, also can be harsh, but that’s a post for another day.) According to the Globe op ed: “…consider the state of ‘mainstream media’ outlets. Increasingly they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, ‘Does this story serve the public good?’ they ask. ‘Will it get ratings?’”

It’s no surprise that mainstream media is a business out to make money, but what is problematic is when accuracy falls victim to sensationalizing the story, and personal attacks take on an obsessive, mean-spiritedness. (The editors then wonder why more people don’t run for office.) LiL has a recent, snub-nosed post about some nastiness from The Sun after the 2007 election, and here is my response to that long ago taunt. Yesterday, The Sun Column was at it again, and although I was not a direct target this time, I couldn’t help but twinge in discomfort over the cruel ridicule bestowed on others. These are people with families who are members of our community, who put their names on the ballot, and who risk very public failure to run for an elected position that pays little and demands much. Regardless of their shortcomings or the final tally of votes, don’t they at least deserve a modicum of decency in how it’s covered? (Don’t we all?) In my family, we learned early that it takes courage to risk failure and work for your goals, and that equally important to being a good loser is being a graceful winner. The hateful words are unnecessary and harmful, not only to the individuals named, but to our entire community.

The following letter was sent yesterday to  Fair Vote Lowell supporters. It is posted here with the permission of Victoria Fahlberg:

Dear Supporters of Fair Vote Lowell,

As you likely know by now, Choice Voting did not pass by a margin of 43% to 57%, or 5174 yes votes and 6841 no votes. We do not know the results yet in terms of precincts other than hearing that the Downtown precincts had more than a 100% increase in turnout and the traditionally strong precincts had about the same voter turnout. We don’t know if the new voters voted for Choice Voting (I’m betting they did), and in the upcoming days we will be analyzing the data to determine where our votes came from.

I have been thinking a lot about what the results mean, but before I get to that, I want to express my deep and sincere gratitude to every person who worked on this campaign. Unlike most campaigns, this campaign had two parts that required enormous work from volunteers. First, was the signature gathering that often took place in the rain or intense heat. More than 100 different people helped us gather an enormous number of signatures. It was that turnout of volunteers that gave Fair Vote Lowell the ability to press forward despite the odds against us.

Once we were finished with the signature gathering, we entered a whole new phase, that of the campaign itself. This phase also required intense labor on the behalf of volunteers, from phonebanking to canvassing, it was amazing how, once again, hundreds of people in Lowell, often people who had not participated in the signature gathering phase, stepped up to move the campaign forward.

There really are not words to describe the gratitude and thanks that all of you deserve who participated in any aspect of the Fair Vote Lowell Campaign. It was a wonderful experience to see the hope and energy of such a large and diverse group of people, who were willing to give their time to promoting justice and fairness. Thank you, thank you.

While a loss feels pretty terrible, as I reflect upon the results, I can’t feel entirely discouraged.  We had a huge uphill battle from the beginning—here are some of the challenges we faced:

1. The bar for gathering signatures for a local initiative is set at a minimum of 8% of all registered voters. For comparison, a statewide initiative only requires signatures of 3% of voters who voted in the last statewide (gubernatorial election). For us, that meant 4188 certified signatures to get choice voting on the ballot.  In Lowell, for a statewide measure it would have only been 641 certified signatures (our volunteers did more than that in a single weekend!)
2. Winning in a statewide initiative requires only a simple majority, as long as that majority includes at least a third of voters who turned out in the last gubernatorial election, whereas the bar for us included a super majority turnout that has not been seen in a local election in decades.
3. The Lowell Sun told their readers to vote No on Choice Voting. While some in Lowell debate the efficacy of our local newspaper, it should be obvious after looking at the overall results of the election thatThe Sun still holds a great deal of power among voters.
4. The local radio station was so biased against us that we felt that we could not utilize them as a source for advertising and be treated fairly. They don’t have a large audience, so this was not a major impact, but it probably did impact a few of their listeners to vote against us.
5. It was our understanding that on the ballot, the referendum would be called Question 1. The referendum had no title at all and the words Question 1 did not appear at all.  During the day, we received a number of calls from people we had phonebanked that they had not seen Question 1 on the ballot. While this would not have impacted the final result, it did confuse some people who went to the polls to vote YES on Question 1 and most likely contributed to the almost 1,700 voters who did not even vote on the question.
6. Few people in Lowell had ever heard of Choice Voting before we began signature gathering in June. We finally got the required signatures on August 27th, which only left us two months to educate the public on an issue that was completely new to them in so many ways—that Lowell’s current system is the least fair system for local multi-seat elections, that ranking candidates provides a more fair system, explaining the complicated (though necessary) vote tabulation, etc.
7. When we started this adventure, we had the promise of funds to see us through to the end, but in June that funding fell through. As a result, we were often a day late and a dollar short, so to speak. In the last few weeks of the campaign, we did see some significant donations that will help offset the cost to ONE Lowell. However, if the promised funding had been available in the Spring, I believe that we could have done more.

So with all of these challenges taken into consideration, everyone at Fair Vote Lowell actually achieved a major accomplishment—nearly 5200 people in Lowell voted for Choice Voting! The more I think about the challenges we faced, the more amazing it becomes to me that so many people voted YES for Choice Voting. How we will best use this incredible accomplishment moving forward, I don’t know. The accomplishment is not that of any one person—it belongs to us all. What I do know is that moving forward, ONE Lowell needs to hear from you, who rose to a challenge, and made a huge impact on your city.

More than anything, I want you to know that even though we lost the vote, we made our voices heard and we are more united than ever. Fairness and justice often come slowly. But it will come. Thank you, Victoria

First, I’m asking for your vote tomorrow to keep me on the school committee because I’m working smarter and harder than ever. The challenges our schools face cannot be solved in Lowell alone. Concerns around resources and accountability must be resolved at the state level, and as chair of the urban division of the Mass. Assoc. of School Committees, my reform efforts with other state education leaders are making an impact along with my work at the local level.

Second, I ask you to vote Yes on Question 1 because it is a fairer system for the city and all its residents. On Saturday, while knocking on doors, a voter asked me if I was crazy to want this change, since as he put it, “I got elected three times under the current system, so why fix what isn’t broken?” Frankly, I don’t think I would have a problem getting re-elected under Choice Voting, but more importantly, other good candidates will have a better chance of winning a seat, money will not be as critical in elections, more voters will be empowered, and all voters will rank their votes rather than limit them. I’m concerned how many votes are “thrown away” because voters have to worry about cancelling out favored candidates (in the 2007 election, 30,000+ votes were unused in the council race). Also, since it takes majority consensus to accomplish anything on these boards, when a group representing one percent of total voters (that’s 5,000 voters) are able to elect a slate of seats while other voters don’t get even one of their candidates elected, it leads to voter apathy and little diversity in leadership. Under a choice system, voters must prioritize their votes, which makes it more difficult for groups to elect a slate. Maybe it shouldn’t concern me that we are one of the few large cities to continue to use a system stacked against newcomers, especially since I’ve done well with it, but just like being a good parent or a good school committee member means doing what’s right over what’s easy, it concerns me greatly. Lowell deserves a fairer system for electing its leaders—one that encourages more candidates and empowers all voters—vote Yes on Question 1!

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.

Remember when President Reagan said that ketchup counted as a vegetable in school lunches? Well, apparently today’s youth are not only forgetting to eat their ketchup, but they’re way behind in their consumption of fruit cocktail. (I use these foods facetiously; obviously ketchup is not the best vegetable, nor is processed fruit soaked in corn syrup the best fruit.) According to this article in the Boston Globe, 90 percent of American high school students are not eating enough fresh fruits and vegetables. The Center for Disease Control, which ranked the diet of American high-school students as poor, requires three servings of vegetables and two servings of fruit a day for a healthy diet. Another interesting point in the article: Some New England states ranked higher (with Vermont the best of that bunch), and those states with students consuming more fruits and vegetables also had more farmers markets and school vending machines stocked with healthier options.

A few years ago, the Lowell School Committee developed a wellness policy that included healthier food options at lunch, and limited the amount of candy and junk food sold during school hours. Since we started serving fresh fruits, carrots and celery sticks in elementary and middle-school lunches, the children are eating the healthier choices. Also according to the new wellness policy, LHS students were required to stop fund raising by selling candy bars during the school day, and high-school vending machines were stocked with water, low-sugar beverages, and healthier choices. Clearly, however, the problem extends beyond school control and has more to do with what’s happening in our homes. Like most aspects of parenting, the real work is modeling the behavior we wish to see in our children; in this case, it means eating healthy ourselves, and making fruits and vegetables part of our own, as well as our children’s, daily diets.

I’m not an expert on the health care issue, only a consumer who fortunately has spent most of her life with health insurance without ever really needing it—until recently—which has certainly changed my perspective on the whole debate. The primary reason opponents give for not supporting universal care is the expense. If it’s true, as I’ve heard, that health care premiums have gone up 119% over the last 10 years, while payments to doctors have remained fairly stagnant (rates set by private insurance companies), who is getting all the money? An article in Sunday’s Boston Globe got me thinking about cost from another perspective, such as how U.S. spending on health care compares to France:

“…the outcome is relatively cost-effective in comparison with the situations in other industrialized nations, according to tracking by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. France spent about $300 billion for the health needs of its 64 million people in 2007, the last year for which reliable statistics are available, the organization reported. That amounted to about 11 percent of gross domestic product for a system covering an estimated 99 percent of the population, well below what Americans pay for a system that leaves out tens of millions of people. On a per capita basis, France also ranked well below the United States in health expenditures. It was eighth on the organization’s list, while the United States ranked at the top. Despite the lower spending, French people have for years had a longer life expectancy than their counterparts in the United States, currently at 80.98 years compared with 78.11.”

In Lowell, rising health-insurance costs continue to be our biggest budget buster despite efforts to reduce expenses by encouraging employees to switch to less-expensive plans. During these tough fiscal times, the need for health care reform has never been stronger.