jackiedoherty.org

Today’s Boston Globe has an interesting article by Philip Jenkins. In “Dark Passages,” Jenkins explores the concept of religious texts that promote violence, noting particular passages from the Koran that may inspire modern Islamic terrorists. He also states: “If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths?” Jenkins goes on to claim that the Bible has far more vicious examples of violence (particularly the Old Testament) than the Koran. “Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions…all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran,” claims Jenkins. The larger issue, of course, is the perspective and context given to these texts that determines their emphasis or if they are taught at all. In the end, social attitude influences the interpretation of religious texts, according to Jenkins, and this forms the foundation of a modern-day faith that depends entirely on the beholder.

I know: Almost doesn’t count except in horseshoes. Maybe it’s true, but I got a kick out of this article in yesterday’s Boston Globe, reporting that the Fisherman’s Memorial statue in Gloucester has been nominated to appear on the 2010 Bay State quarter. According to the article, the weathered-green copper statue received votes that accounted for “more than four times its closest competitor, Lowell National Historic Park.” The governor’s office submitted the fisherman statue as well as three alternatives to the Feds (not sure if Lowell was included as an alternative).  Ultimately, it may not matter because the U.S. Mint is the final decider. Still, you have to admit, second place is close. Imagine, Lowell National Park depicted on quarters…As my teenager noted, “That would have been sick!” (BTW, the first Massachusetts quarter of the new century, minted in 2000, depicted a Minuteman soldier from a statue in Concord and was designed by middle-school children.)

Although she lives in Boston, my friend travels to Lowell several times a week to care for her elderly parents. Her phone alarm goes off periodically, no matter where she is, to remind her to make sure her mother has taken her medicine. She gets them to appointments, checks up on their medications, prepares their food, and discusses their treatment with multiple caretakers and specialists; but she cannot be there 24/7 and she worries about them. My own dear mother-in-law died four years ago after having a stroke in her apartment at an independent living facility for seniors.  When she didn’t come down for breakfast or lunch, a facility manager checked on her, but by then the damage from the stroke was too severe, and she was gone from us.  According to this recent article in the New York Times, new personal health technology could have saved my mother-in-law’s life, or at the very least, could help put my friend’s mind at ease regarding her parents’ care. As many of us live longer and have to face the inevitable health complications that go along with aging, perhaps these new technologies will allow us to “rage against the dying of the light,” a bit more.  If the technology—such as sensors noting you got out of bed and didn’t go anywhere prompting emergency personnel at your door—feels too Big Brotherish for you, consider it a tool to remain independent long “into that good night.” Anyway, it’s something to think about.

Self-described as an upbeat column, yesterday’s “Chat” took a side trip from its usual tone to swipe at the Lowell School Committee: “The best idea I have been given over the years calls for an abolishment of the school board and the addition of three to five members to the Lowell City Council — five of whom would sit as a subcommittee on education…” notes Kendall Wallace, chair of the newspaper and longtime critic of the school board. As a five-year board member who has worked for more than a decade to improve our public schools, my initial response was: How does eliminating the school board and making it a subset of the Council improve its focus or efficacy? Secondly, if there were some justification for that and it happened, count on me to run for Lowell City Council. (I don’t imagine I would be alone in that pursuit.)

The problem with this column is its attempt to paint the entire board with one brush regarding recent student vacation trips on school time. All votes permitting such trips, specifically to Quebec and Spain/Portugal, have been approved by the vast majority of the board, and one member’s comments against them clearly does not represent the entire committee. Student attendance matters, yet my primary concern has always been improving the quality of the school day. We only have our students for 180 days, making it imperative that they attend school, yes, but also that each moment in school offers students engaged, meaningful learning experiences. That means our focus, from the board to the classroom teacher, must be on high-quality instruction and effective curriculum that challenges our students to their potential. I recognize that learning happens outside the classroom, which is why the board unanimously supported the policy update regarding student travel. (More on the district’s travel policy in a separate post.) In the meantime, read the “Chat” with a hefty grain of salt, as with most education editorials in this paper—there’s more to the issue than printed here.

I read with great interest yesterday’s article in the Lowell Sun regarding newly elected State Representative Jim Arciero’s bill to end a decades-old perk that enables legislators with 20+ years of service to increase their pensions substantially if they are fired or not re-elected. According to the Sun article: “Depending on their salaries and time of service, the perk allows officials with more than 20 years on the job to begin collecting “superannuation” pensions immediately, along with life-time health insurance.” The article goes on to list a series of gluttonous beneficiaries of the perk that defies belief: such as Mike Lewis, former director of the Big Dig, raising his pension base by one million dollars to $2.47 million, or Representative Christopher Hodgkins more than quadrupling his pension. That Arciero, who served for years as a staff member for State Senator Steve Panagiotakos, has introduced this important reform legislation less than two months into his first term is impressive. If he can get the support he needs from his colleagues, even better. Aside from the stunning realization that boosting pensions this way has gone on since 1950, how could anyone NOT support putting an end to such a blatant abuse of taxpayers’ money? Let’s keep our eyes on this one to see if there truly is any hope of self-reform under the Commonwealth’s Golden Dome.

In another blatant attempt to bully the school committee, today’s Lowell Sun features its second editorial in eight days lambasting the board while ignoring basic facts and context: “How this perk was ever extended to the nonunion sector is anybody’s guess. But the shame of it falls on the School Department’s Central Office financial whiz kids who didn’t see the error of their ways, and on the school board for its lack of oversight in rubber-stamping the payments.”

It is not a guess how this benefit extended to non-union employees: it is a way for management to dissuade employees from joining unions, which allows them greater flexibility in scheduling and other management rights. Extending these benefits has been such a longstanding practice, in fact, not only in our schools but with Lowell city employees and municipalities across the state, that it defies logic for the Sun to blame it on the school committee. (But then logic and truth don’t factor much in these editorials.) For instance, Lowell Code 56-6 E clearly specifies that employees “shall be paid for unused accumulated sick leave on a forty-percent ratio” with a maximum buyback not to exceed $20,000 and without a longevity requirement. (The benefit for school employees—including the 47 non-union members—pays only those with 15+ years of service and accrues at a 33 percent ratio with no cap.)

The major problem with sick-leave buyback is that it is extremely expensive; this year’s school budget allocates $1 million to pay for it. However, removing the benefit for most employees can’t happen by a simple vote from the school board or the city council. Sick-leave buyback was negotiated into union contracts decades ago—presumably as an attendance and retirement incentive, as well as a perk when salaries were low. The only way to get it out of our contracts, which impacts more than 2,000 unionized school employees, is to negotiate it out.

Regardless of the nasty editorials, the Lowell School Committee must vote regarding the 47 non-union employees. Unlike the city, we do not have an ordinance that grants the benefit in writing although the non-union members may fall under city jurisdiction. Nine of the 47 have served 15 years or more, which means they are vested and expecting to receive a total of about $136,000 in buyback payments if they retire today—a benefit they have seen their colleagues (both union and not) receive for decades. As is often the case with these editorials, the true shame is how inaccurately a complex issue is portrayed, and what a disservice that is to the public. (My response to last week’s rant here.) The school committee will meet at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, 2/4, which will be televised live on channel 10.

While it’s no surprise that a certain editor of our local paper has gone on a recycled rant against the Lowell School Committee (many of today’s accusations are retakes from ad nauseam tirades last summer), the simplistic, unbalanced, and inaccurate nature of the attacks never fail to amaze me. On point: There absolutely needs to be reform at all levels of government spending—the process is painfully slow and wrought with obstacles, many of which are completely out of the school committee’s control. It is, however, false that no progress has been made or that the Lowell School Committee, in particular, is to blame. Lowell school salaries are within range of other districts as well as its benefits, which mirror (or in some cases, fall below) the city’s compensation package. In the real world, most folks get that effective hiring requires market-level compensation. While blaming the board is easy and fits nicely with this editor’s agenda for an appointed school committee, it does little to accurately inform readers or to help achieve what should be our shared goal of continuing to improve the quality of public education despite diminishing resources.

Accuracy has never been at the top of this editor’s priorities, and that alone would be tragedy enough if it weren’t so distracting from the real challenges the schools face, or the reality of how critical it is to our economic survival that all students receive a quality education. The reality is that government today is faced with fiscal challenges that will require substantial cuts to services for all residents, with particular devastation to those most in need. The reality is that as unemployment, homelessness and poverty increase, so does domestic violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and families in crisis—factors that directly impact a child’s readiness to learn. The reality is that reform is desperately needed to control spiraling costs in health insurance, special education, and sick leave buyback, but many obstacles exist well beyond the scope of a local school board. Our future depends on our ability to continue to improve our public schools, despite the fiscal crisis, and to do that we need creative solutions, a new approach to complex issues, and all levels of government working together. Given that reality: simpleminded blame is not only misleading, it’s downright harmful.

Today’s newspapers are reporting that after record job losses, Congress will move toward providing “a short-term rescue plan” for the nation’s top automakers.  I’m no expert, but whatever funds are provided should come with an equal load of stipulations—from payback plans and executive salary caps, to a focus on developing fuel-efficient, alternative-energy autos. Earlier today, I overheard this comment: “What’s wrong with the Democrats is they’re always kowtowing to the unions” as if the need for the bailout is the fault of the auto unions. Is it the unions who shoulder the brunt of blame regarding the terrible mess that is the U.S. auto industry? After four years of working on the other side of the table with a variety of school-related unions, I am not naïve to the downsides of the power unions wield, but I find it difficult to fathom that this mess is their doing in any significant way. Although I don’t have details regarding the benefits and salaries auto workers receive, I got a compelling email from an acquaintance, which I share below:

“The anti-union organizations and the Bush union busters want you to believe the lies that they have saturated the media with. They want you to believe that the United Auto Workers are the cause of the downfall of the auto industry. They want you to believe that union workers make $70 an hour and that’s why the auto industry has failed and needs a bail out. Lies, and more lies. The average auto worker and machinist starts at about $14 an hour…The UWA union, in order to help the industry, took pay cuts and reductions in medical coverage, and more, while the CEOs continued to make millions of dollars—all while producing gas-guzzling cars no one wanted.” 

Determining the reasons for the industry’s failure are important because before Congress provides one cent to this cause, American taxpayers deserve a plan to turnaround the mistakes of the past, restrictions on how the funds are used, and a payback schedule.

After watching President-Elect Barack Obama’s press conference today announcing his national security team, I was relieved to see wisdom in action. As he introduced his team and explained the reasoning behind his decisions, including keeping incumbent Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Republican) and adding Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, it was clear that Obama was going to lead with strength and logic. During his remarks, he mentioned he “welcomes vigorous debate” from his team but will set the policy and be responsible for the outcome.  In response to a reporter’s question, Obama noted that “outside the heat” of campaigning, he and his former Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton share the view that “strength and diplomacy together will advance American interests.” His choices for national security team also include General Jim Jones as National Security Adviser (a respected leader and close friend of Republican presidential candidate John McCain), further demonstrating Obama values bi-partisan team building and surrounding himself with strong thinkers. As he put it, the team he selected comprises “tough, smart and disciplined” folks who “share my core values” while also noting that he saw “group think” and “no dissenting views” as weaknesses in leadership. Today’s announcement reminded me of a great Frontline biography from PBS on Obama and McCain, which is well worth watching. The Choice 2008 examines, among other things, Obama’s appointments when he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. At that time, Obama also crossed the aisle by mixing liberal and conservative chair appointments, apparently with the priority being strong and effective leadership rather than simply paying back old friends or peppering the Review with yes-men. Perhaps there is hope after all.

Yesterday on WBUR, I heard Caprice Taylor, executive director of EMERGE Massachusetts, an organization dedicated to inspiring Democratic women leadership, talking about the need for women to run for elected office. In spite of Hilary Clinton’s inability to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for the nation’s top job, women across the country, and particularly in New England, continue to make important strides in gaining political leadership. For instance, our neighbor state of New Hampshire now boasts a majority of women elected to its state legislature. Women (11 of whom are Democrats) hold 13 of New Hampshire’s 24 seats—representing the first state legislature in the country to have a female majority.  (Women currently represent about one quarter of the Massachusetts state legislature.) Yet, here in our home state, we’re making historic strides as well. For an update on how women in Massachusetts fared during last week’s election, check the Mass. Women’s Political Caucus, a non-partisan group committed to increasing women’s involvement in politics. The good news is that even without the top job, women leaders are not alone or afraid to help each other.  In the Merrimack Valley, Congresswomen Niki Tsongas, as well as other elected women, endorsed newly elected State Representative Jen Benson, chair of the Lunenberg School Committee, in her race for Jamie Eldridge’s former seat. As relative newcomers to politics, first-time female candidates need the support and encouragement of established elected women—just as their male counterparts have enjoyed for centuries. I am not an “all-women-always voter” (ideology and candidate matter most), but I believe women, in general, bring strengths, sensibilities, and skills (such as consensus building) that we desperately need, and a balanced governing body is more effective.