jackiedoherty.org

I was at a Credit Union conference last week where the economic news was gloom and doom, which I thought I’d pass along (misery loves company and all). According to a senior economist from the Credit Union National Association, most economists are calling the government’s tax rebate plan, “a questionable stimulus package.” Why? Because, for one thing, it probably will not stimulate the economy. Most American consumers currently have record amounts of debt and little savings. The other bad news: rising unemployment (in March, up to 5.1% from 4.8%), recession (economic growth predicated to slow to .9% this year—well below the long-term sustainable trend growth rate of 3.5%), and inflation (now up to 4.1%). Inflation was under 2% last August, so what’s happening? Our dollars are buying less, the sub-prime mess has crept into other facets of the economy, and housing wealth is disappearing as values sink, so naturally people are going to save and pay down debt with their rebates, which is apparently part of the necessary pain we have to undergo to pay for our free-spending ways. The rebate is actually going to cost about $150 billion because the U.S. Government is doing what consumers are doing—spending more than is earned, much of it borrowed from China. As this economist pointed out, the only economy that will be stimulated by these rebates is China’s. Clearly this package is for political, not economic stimulus. In the meantime, the letter we all got from the IRS informing us that the check is (almost) in the mail, cost taxpayers $42 million!

All I only know about it is what’s in today’s Boston Globe, but it sure seems like a great business, government, and nonprofit partnership ripe with winners for the City of Lawrence. (How can we do it in Lowell?) The article, entitled “Employer eases path to citizenship” explains a partnership where a businessman—Salvatore Lupoli of Lupoli’s chain of pizzerias—earmarked company funds to pay attorney and application fees for his employees to apply for citizenship while area nonprofits provide English and citizenship classes. Also sponsored by the City of Lawrence, the plan helps legal immigrants prevail over a citizenship process that can often be mired in bureaucracy and expensive fees. This pilot initiative is expected to impact 10 immigrants to start, but the plan is that as more businesses that rely heavily on immigrant employees see the impact in terms of turnover and staffing, it will grow. Can’t you just imagine such a partnership here in Lowell between employers, our Adult Education program, which is the largest and most respected in the state, and the many nonprofit groups in the area? This model would provide yet another way to build on already successful citizenship programs.

If you’re like me, you probably know several women who have battled breast cancer. I have seen up close how this disease has wreaked havoc in the lives of dear friends and family members, from young mothers in their thirties to women in their seventies and all ages in between. Yet today, thousands of Massachusetts women are not getting the breast screening services they need because of access and funding gaps in our healthcare system. This Friday, April 11, starting at 11 a.m. in the Great Hall of the State House, the Massachusetts Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure invites you to attend a legislative luncheon and policy forum on closing the gap in care, featuring former State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien, Senator Dianne Wilkerson, and Dr. Jane Mendez, as well as breast cancer survivors, advocates, community leaders, and healthcare providers.

While Massachusetts has made strides in ensuring healthcare for all, important work remains. You can get involved and add your voice to others in support of making sure all women have an equal chance at beating breast cancer: Attend the luncheon (ok, perhaps not feasible for most of us), but you can easily send an email to state legislative leaders as a show of support…and even connect to your Congressional representatives with information provided here. (Hey, we’re not asking you to walk 20 miles or write a check, although that could be arranged!)

Jackie will be joining George Anthes tonight on WCAP, 980 AM, at 8:00 p.m.

The front page of today’s New York Times has an article about Mass. Governor Deval Patrick’s struggles with House Speaker Sal DiMasi, claiming the Democratic governor’s inability to accomplish his goals in a heavily Democratic legislature are due to the personality-power conflicts between the two elected officials.  The article claims the struggles between the men are personal, are beyond a difference of opinion about gambling, and have severely limited the governor, who ran on a promise of hope and change, in his efforts to move his initiatives forward.  The article quotes Patrick as saying, “We’re going to keep working on it until we get a Democratic process that’s functioning.”

As someone who continues to support Governor Patrick’s vision for the Commonwealth, I am concerned to see resistance to many of the governor’s plans around revenue raising (his Municipal Partnership Act for instance) that seem to be more about power plays than what’s best for the people of Massachusetts. I’m not at the State House, but from what I’ve heard, representatives are pressured to vote with the Speaker, records are kept of those who don’t, and punitive measures, such as losing chairmanships and getting offices relocated to the basement, are possible consequences for these perceived betrayals. If that is the case, it is a sad testament to what democracy has become in the birthplace of the ideals that formed our government. I agree with Patrick—we need a Democratic process that’s functioning, and that requires representatives who are willing to vote their conscience over the current power structure.

Please note: this is Margaret writing 

Yesterday while strolling down Middle Street, I saw a bumper sticker that read “Democracy needs Dissent.” In light of some of the dissension on the school committee these days and repeated calls for everyone to get along, I think we should heed these words. Sure, it is nice to present a united front, to have everyone agree and get along; however, I think putting harmony first, relegating the inevitable disagreements to the backroom, does a disservice to voters. Without public discussion, handled in an orderly fashion according to Robert’s Rules, how will the voters ever clearly see what a candidate stands for, what philosophy drives them and what they are willing to fight for? As an informed voter, I want to see our elected officials stand up for their beliefs and argue for them in an open forum. Yes, it can get messy, it can be stressful, but that’s what democracy is all about. In the past, I felt that there was a reluctance to stand up to city hall, the local media, or even question the delegation; it seemed concerned parents had no one to speak their case, so we had to speak up ourselves. Maybe our new superintendent will have an uphill battle at first, but if people pay attention and see who exactly is blocking progress, they can speak up at meetings, contact the committee, and organize other like-minded people to do the same. It’s not easy, it’s not comfortable, but that’s what it takes.

As you might recall, the motion to require that city employees be residents of Lowell was sent to subcommittee (see previous rant).  We heard from City Councilor, Kevin Broderick, who is chair of the Personnel Subcommittee, that they will meet next Tuesday, March 26, at 6:O0 pm, in the council chambers (thanks for the prompt reply, Kevin!).  They will be discussing the residency issue at that time. The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 10, so tune in or show up to find out what the subcommittee will decide.  Speaking of the city council, a motion came up last night to reduce the council schedule by half, that is to meet every other week instead of weekly.  This was also sent to subcommittee (Rules, chaired by Councilor Milinazzo), but it appears to have majority support (see Dick’s post).  Since I didn’t watch the meeting (I do have a life; I was busy watching the video of the superintendent interviews on LTC), I’m not sure what the rationale is for the motion.   I certainly don’t recall any talk of either of these issues during the campaign last fall.  It would be interesting to track peoples’ campaign rhetoric to their actual actions on the council; it might bridge the reality gap between what is said to attract voters and what the candidate really cares about. But, like I said, I have a life….

Tonight, the school committee will interview the two local candidates of the four finalists for the position of superintendent of Lowell Schools.  The interviews will be held in city council chambers beginning at 6:30 pm and will be televised live on Channel 10.  (The second set of interviews will be held tomorrow night, same time and place and also broadcast live.) The rebroadcast schedule is:

Both sets of interviews will be available for viewing on  LTC streaming video by Monday, 3/17, so people can watch them anytime from their computers.

Each interview will get a total of 4 replays on alternating days, beginning with the Thursday interviews (Schlictman & Jack):  Saturday, 3/15 at 1:00 pm; Monday, 3/17 at noon; Thursday, 3/20 at noon; and Saturday, 3/22 at 2:00 pm. The Friday interviews (Scott and Bonner) will air as follows:  Sunday, 3/16 at 1:00 pm; Tuesday, 3/18 at 10:00 am; Friday, 3/21 at 3:00 pm; Sunday, 3/23 at 2:00 pm. 

Despite the cynical comments by Sun editors, who seem to think the committee has made up its mind without even interviewing the candidates, each of the four will have a chance to answer questions and state their qualifications for the job in a public forum.  Residents have a role in this process; it is important to watch the interviews and communicate your impressions by contacting the entire committee  and/or writing a letter to the editor.  The school committee will make its decision on Monday, March 24, in a meeting at council chambers, televised live on channel 10, beginning at 6:30.

As pressure mounts to move quickly in the superintendent search, it is imperative that folks stay involved. At its special meeting tonight, the school committee will make major decisions about the search process including the date and format of the finalist interviews, scheduling site visits, and establishing the timetable for voting on the next superintendent of Lowell Schools. The meeting will be held in the Mayor’s Reception Room at 7 p.m. It will NOT be broadcast, so folks are encouraged to attend to see firsthand what’s happening and to let their concerns be known. To speak at the meeting, register by calling or sending an email to June Cormier by 2 p.m. today at 978-937-9714 or jcormier@lowell.k12.ma.us.

Frustrated is an understatement regarding how I felt when I first learned in yesterday’s Sun that interviews with the superintendent finalists had been set for next week. As the school committee, we were due to decide this and other search issues at our March 19 meeting. Our bylaws do not allow some members (or one mayor) to make such a change—the rules require us to make decisions as a group in public meetings. So now there will be a special school committee meeting on Monday, March 10 at 7 pm in the Mayor’s Reception Room. The public is invited to attend and be heard on this issue.

Granted, the search committee named their finalists one week earlier than the timetable required, but to schedule interviews without the entire committee’s knowledge and approval (I wasn’t the only one in the dark) and without public discussion, is wrong. This is the school committee’s most important decision. The final vote will impact the quality of education our children receive for years—better to pick the right candidate and have citizens participate than rush the process.

So, here’s my wish list: All the interviews are held on one Saturday morning with ample public notice. Before that, the entire committee decides the date and format for the interviews, determines if there are other candidates to include, develops a process for on-site visits, and hears from the community. Now, I may not get all my wishes but I should get the opportunity to present them to my colleagues in an open forum, debate our differences, and vote; in which case, the majority will prevail. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.