richardhowe.com

At work I subscribe to an email service from the Governor’s office that notifies recipients anytime the Governor orders flags to be flown at half-staff. The text of one that arrived today went something like this:

Please be advised that Governor Patrick has ordered that the United States flag and the Commonwealth flag be lowered to half-staff at all state buildings from sunrise until sunset on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 in honor of Mayor Kevin H. White of Boston, Massachusetts who died on January 27, 2012.

While the passing of Mayor White is certainly a solemn occasion, I found just a little bit of irony in the timing and substance of this notice given the communal discussion we’re engaged in here in Lowell about the propriety of lowering flags in honor of the passing of local election officials. Gerry Nutter had posts here and here on the topic and Councilor Rita Mercier filed a motion at last week’s council meeting. I didn’t watch tonight’s meeting so I don’t know if there has yet been a reply. According to the minutes of last week’s meeting, the motion and the discussion was as follows:

City Council set policy as standard procedure to automatically lower the flag on city property to half mast when elected officials die. RE: Congress, State Senators, State Representatives, Mayors, City Councilors and School Committee Members. In Council, read and adopted. So voted. C. Martin stated that he is under the belief that only the Governor can order any municipal building to fly flag at half-mast. C. Kennedy stated that this is a situation when you go ahead and do it until you are told not to.

As I said, I hadn’t been paying much attention to this issue until the Kevin White notice arrived today. Curious, I did a little Googling and found that 4 US Code section 7 makes it pretty clear that only the President or the Governor of a state may order the flag lowered to half-staff. I’m not sure if an express Federal law prohibiting something meets the “do it until you are told not to” test but it probably does. Not that I’m criticizing that approach; “it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission” has helped me overcome innumerable bureaucratic obstacles. Still, the law’s the law.

Another outfit, USFlag.org, also addresses this issue. When you read their post on half-staff flags, you can tell they’ve been severely criticized for saying “no half-staff” in the past:

[National Flag Foundation] points out these “good-faith misunderstandings” not to criticize or embarrass anyone, but rather to head off a growing trivialization of this memorial salute, and to preserve the dignity and significance of flying the U.S. flag at half-staff. To any readers who may think that NFF is insensitive for raising these breaches of etiquette, please be assured that our motives are pure. We grieve these human loses deeply; however, we believe proper respect for our flag must be maintained – no matter the circumstances.

Everyone involved in this discussion wants to do the right thing which is to appropriately honor those decedents who have rendered valuable service to the city of Lowell. There’s no doubt that working together, appropriate and standardized methods of recognition can be found and implemented.

Whether its being propelled by citizens who want change or the media that wants controversy, a discussion of whether Lowell should switch to a strong mayor form of government broke out this week. I wrote a blog post, In Defense of Plan E last Saturday, then discussed it on City Life on Thursday, and was interviewed by Lyle Moran of the Sun on Friday for a story that’s to appear in Sunday’s newspaper. After these multiple discussions, I thought it advisable to restate my opinion here even though it might repeat some of the arguments in the aforementioned Plan E post.

I think Lowell’s Plan E system works pretty well. Practical political power doesn’t reside in one person as it would with a strong mayor, but is balanced between the council and the city manager. And if the council forced/demanded/required/allowed (pick one) their other two appointees, the Clerk and the Auditor to exercise their authority to the full extent already permitted by statute, then power would be even more balanced.

If the voters don’t like the direction of the city, they can change the council every two years. That’s exactly what happened in 1969 and 1993, the two years in which charter change referendums also appeared on the ballot. In 1969, five new councilors were elected and in 1993 it was six. In both years, the impetus to change the charter died quiet deaths both times. From the historical record, we might infer (as I do) that rising talk of the need to change the charter might telegraph a disruptive election on the horizon but that’s just pure speculation based on historic patterns.

Those who lead such petition drives presumably are dissatisfied with the direction of the city. If not, why seek such a change. I believe that history also shows that under such circumstances, charter change efforts are a distraction, diluting the finite amount of time and energy possessed by those who want change. If the effort expended on charter change was instead focused on candidates, the change sought would be more likely to occur.

Another argument made in support of a charter change is the level of voter participation in municipal elections. In 2011, 20% of the city’s 50,354 voters (9946) went to the polls. I always respond to that statistic with one of my own: the 61% turnout on November 4, 2008 (31,905 of the 51,988 registered voters made it to the polls). True, that was a Presidential election year, but it’s also true that 22,000 voters (the difference in turnout from 2008 to 2011) knew where to vote, were able to get there on a Tuesday, and made the effort. Why don’t those 22,000 vote in city elections? I assume it’s because they feel disconnected from city affairs and doubt very much that altering the way we elect our mayor or councilors will change that. A strategy that sought to connect those people in practical ways with their neighbors, their neighborhood and then their city would do more to increase voter participation than a stack of petitions.

Finally, there are those who argue that the current position of mayor is trivial, limited to cutting ribbons and emceeing square dedications. Those with that view not only misunderstand the office of mayor, they misunderstand political power. While the actual authority of the mayor as chair of the council, the chair of the school committee, and the person who appoints the subcommittees of both is substantial, it’s the intangibles that make the mayor of Lowell such an important figure in the city’s power structure. Lowell is filled with people and entities – governmental, non-profit, corporate or individual – who all perform important missions. But there is no one to coordinate those efforts, no one to be the city’s political air traffic controller. Simply by virtue of the office, Lowell’s mayor has a seat at many tables and can connect people who then pursue common goals. This doesn’t require spending money or issuing orders; it just requires someone with a strategic view making connections. Ironically, when the mayor performs this role well, it’s almost entirely in the background known by just a few. If you doubt this view, just ask any former mayor about it.

A post made this afternoon on the Lowell Sun political blog criticizes Mayor Patrick Murphy for some of his selections of chairpersons for various city council subcommittees. The post, “Murphy flexes Mayoral Muscle, begins with . . .

Rookie Mayor Patrick Murphy left no doubt who’s in charge when he made City Council subcommittee assignments this week, one of the first official acts of business for a new mayor. Murphy rewarded those who supported him and whacked those who didn’t.

. . . and goes on from there with the full post available here.

Proving that we have indeed reached a new era in Lowell politics, the Mayor fired back almost immediately with the following which was added as a comment to the initial Sun post:

Chris,

Among the many false assertions made in your recent post is the suggestion that “the Column blog is chasing down Murphy and Lynch for their response,” as though I were evading any questions. At the time of your writing, I had not received any communication whatsoever from the Sun/Blog/yourself. This leads to other issues of communication. In November, I spoke with then Councillor-elect Kennedy for an hour at Santoro’s to discuss the kinds of issues he’d like to work on in the new term, and he expressed an interest in economic development and transportation, and a concern for the rules. We also discussed at that time the mayoralty, and Mr. Kennedy had indicated that he would be in touch with me at the beginning of the following week with a decision. We did not speak again until I called him over a month later. After hearing of Councillor Martin’s public support, I called Rodney on Saturday, December 31st at 3:52pm and left a message, which was never returned. As you might imagine, communication must be two-way. Communication is also important in organizing and chairing meetings.

You also make the statement: “Murphy rewarded those who supported him and whacked those who didn’t.” I would suggest you ask either Councillor Mercier or Vice Chairman Mendonça whether they were happy with their assignments or whether they felt “whacked.” I would further suggest that it is perhaps your mindset of power politics, rather than mine, that has colored the interpretation of these assignments. They were made thoughtfully and to spur the most discussion and ideas. Councillor Nuon’s background in public safety issues in his twenty-plus year career and his work in the community will be important to inform the work ahead of us. He campaigned on actual ideas that he wanted to pursue, particularly addressing youth violence with satellite after-school programs, and I expect that he will be able to work with many groups and leaders to achieve those.

Similarly, I think that Councillor Elliott’s involvement with the flooding issues, particularly in his neighborhood of Pawtucketville, well qualifies him to lead the relevant subcommittee. His community involvement in youth soccer groups, his concern for their safety in the library and elsewhere, and his enthusiastic support for the Vote 17 initiative make him a good fit for the Youth Issues subcommittee. Having served on both the Council and School Committee, a keen eye for details and an independent mind, Vice Chairman Mendonça appears to have a far better grasp of municipal finance issues, and how they are all intertwined. I would also like to see this committee meet more regularly and work more closely with the School Department’s counterpart in the coming term, and Vice Chairman Mendonça ‘s experience on the School Committee should facilitate those discussions. As I said before, the subcommittees are new and no one has been replaced, but in the twelve preceding years, the former Chair presided over a time of declining bond ratings and at a time when the city was added to the Department of Revenue’s watchlist. He has suggested that bond ratings don’t matter, made motions that confirm that belief, and has shown a poor understanding of performance-based budgeting. He voted against the Ameresco contract and LowellStat initiative, both of which will realize substantial long-term savings while improving our operations. So the decision was a policy one, not personal. To be worthwhile, experience is not just about time served, but how wisely time is spent.

Lastly, I would like to address your repetition of a false and defamatory claim—originally made by Lyle Moran and repeated by your editor—namely that the city manager has had a hand in my decisions as a councillor. The editor has not responded to a request for a meeting to discuss those statements. In fact, if there is a communication problem, it lies with the paper. Three emails were sent on November 12th, 14th and 21st respectively, before the first response by the Sun shortly thereafter on the 21st. Another making the request for a meeting has not been responded to since the 22nd of November. As it appears the Sun is not as eager to answer questions as it is to ask them, I will say this clearly for the record: the manager did not participate in any discussion of subcommittee assignments or in what issues I choose to pursue. The manager does not tell me how to vote, which motions to file, who to reward or who to whack. We are not in the mob. We know our roles. And I am simply a citizen of Lowell hoping to make things a bit better. You could probably help. I hope you will.

Patrick Murphy
Lowell

This past Tuesday, just 90 minutes before the Lowell City Council inauguration ceremony commenced, I appeared as a guest on WCAP to discuss past mayoral elections. Host Ted Panos eventually asked me about the process of selecting a mayor and about the mayor’s duties and responsibilities under the city’s Plan E Charter.

Based on my 46 years of observing the present system, often up close, I’m of the opinion that it works pretty well and ought not to be changed. Not everyone shares that opinion. Just the other day in a letter to the editor, John MacDonald (who was a candidate for city council in this just-past election) advocated the adoption of a strong mayor form of government similar to what now exists in Boston. Others have recently urged that the mayor’s duties and responsibilities remain as they are now but that the selection process be changed to mirror that in Worcester, where the mayor is elected directly by the voters and not as part of the city council. Still others propose that the top vote getter or the longest serving councilor who hasn’t already been mayor automatically gains the post.

Funny, but I don’t remember all these charter change suggestions in years in which the mayor is elected unanimously. It’s in years where there’s a tight race that folks start questioning the system, but it’s not just those who favor the unsuccessful mayoral aspirant who are the loudest advocates – although they’re often well-represented. There’s a reasonable concern that a divisive mayoral election on the council’s first day will generate animosity that will taint the entire term but the reality is that any council that can’t accept the will of the majority when it comes to electing a mayor and move on with the business of the council would soon find some other issue to divide it.

As for the powers of the mayor, I believe that those who advocate a switch to a strong mayor/no city manager form and those who say the mayor under our present system is “just ceremonial” both misunderstand the role and the power of the mayor (and the city council) under the Plan E form of government.

Councils in communities with strong mayors are exceedingly weak and, except for some budget setting matters, are often in search of a mission. The council in Lowell in contrast is quite powerful with week-to-week responsibilities. (And if the Lowell City Council was more assertive in its control of the offices of City Clerk and City Auditor as permitted by Plan E, the council would wield even greater power, but that’s another story). As the chair of a powerful council, the mayor exerts much influence over decisions, if only through things like subcommittee assignments and controlling the flow of council meetings.

But the mayor of Lowell is much more than the chair of the city council. The mayor automatically becomes a member of the school committee and is that body’s chair. Beyond that, however, being the chair of both elected bodies simultaneously makes the mayor the liaison between the two. No other person is in a position to coordinate and synchronize the efforts of city government and the public schools. It is along the boundaries of the “city side” and the “school side” that inefficiencies occur and opportunities are lost. A mayor who understands the job and exerts the power that accompanies the office can do much to improve that relationship for the benefit of all. Similarly, the mayor has tremendous power to shape the relationship of the city government/public schools combination with the businesses, non-profits, other government agencies, and individual residents that make up the city.

All of the above is not meant to diminish the importance of the office of the city manager, the single most important position in city government. My point is that there’s more to being mayor than cutting ribbons and speaking at testimonials – there’s a lot more with much of it intangible and not easy to quantify. It’s up to the person elected to the position by the other councilors to recognize and then exercise that power.

In 1969 the people of Lowell voted overwhelmingly for a charter commission that would recommend changes to the city’s form of government. Just two years later, however, the proposal to change the existing system was defeated by more than a 2 to 1 margin (22,172 “no” to 9088 “yes”). In 1993, a non-binding referendum asking if the city should have an elected strong mayor instead of an appointed city manager prevailed with 10,044 “yes” votes to 6760 “no” votes. Despite such a big win, nothing more ever happened – it was if no such referendum had ever been held.

So in two elections – 1969 and 1993 – the people voted for change to the charter but in both cases the charter stayed intact. Why? When you look at the overall results of both of those elections, it becomes clear that the people weren’t voting to change the charter, they were voting for change – period. In 1969, the voters elected five new councilors; in 1993, they elected six. Change came, but it came through the current system via the ballot box. To me, proposals to change our system of government are distractions. If you don’t like the way things are going – including who is elected mayor – change the council, don’t change the system.

Today’s Globe North section has a story on Hong Net of Lynn and Vesna Nuon of Lowell who both took office as city councilors in their respective cities this week. The story also gives credit to Rithy Uong for being the first Cambodian-American ever elected to a city council in this country (he joined the Lowell City Council back in 1999). The story quotes Vesna as saying his priorities will be to bring people together and to “proactively address crime and violence in our city.”

I caught a portion of today’s Lowell City Council inaugural ceremony on LTC. Things started shortly after 10 am from the Council Chamber with the Lowell High JROTC Color Guard posting the colors and the Lowell High chorus singing the National Anthem. Rev. Paul Ouellette of St Patrick’s Church then offered an invocation and Superior Court Associate Justice Jack Lu (a Tewksbury native) then administered the oath of office to the nine councilors-elect.

The first order of business was to elect a mayor. Councilors were called one-by-one – they sit in alphabetical order – and each announced the name of his or her candidate. Here’s how it went:

• Kevin Broderick voted for Patrick Murphy
• Rodney Elliott voted for himself
• Ed Kennedy voted for Rodney Elliott
• Marty Lorrey voted for Patrick Murphy
• Bill Martin voted for Patrick Murphy
• Joe Mendonca voted for Rodney Elliott
• Rita Mercier voted for Rodney Elliott
• Patrick Murphy voted for himself
• Vesna Nuon voted for Patrick Murphy

The count: Patrick Murphy five votes; Rodney Elliott four votes. City Clerk Michael Geary then invited Murphy’s parents to escort their son to the front of the room where Judge Lu administered the mayoral oath. As Mayor Murphy mounted the rostrum, Councilor Elliott moved to make the vote for Murphy unanimous. His motion passed on a voice vote without opposition.

Mayor Murphy began his remarks by thanking all the former mayors who were in attendance, a group that included Brendan Fleming, Ed Early, Brian Martin, Bud Caulfield and Eileen Donoghue. He also thanked and recognized his colleagues, Rita Mercier and Bill Martin, both former mayors themselves. He also expressed his appreciation to his predecessor, Jim Milinazzo, who was not in attendance. State Representatives Kevin Murphy and Tom Golden were in attendance and were recognized.

Murphy then gave a thoughtful, substance-packed speech of reasonable length. While he touched on many things, some stood out for me: He said we in government should strive to use technology to make government more efficient but we should always guard against losing the human touch. He specifically advocated more early childhood education, especially in reading. He said new funding was always welcome, but what we need most of all are creativity, time and energy, “not by a few, but by many.” He said the council “need not be unified in thought” but should be unified in doing what is best for the city and should always be open to new ideas.

After his remarks, Murphy’s first act as mayor was to preside over the election of a Vice Chair. Joe Mendonca was elected unanimously. Right after that, a young woman from Lowell High School named Princess Chan, who recently won second prize in a recent Kerouac Poetry Contest at Lowell High School and who has read at a recent UTEC Youth Forum, recited an “inaugural poem” titled “Autumn #17″. I believe it was the first time in at least fifty years that a poem was recited at a council inauguration. It’s too bad it didn’t happen sooner, because it was a wonderful way to conclude the ceremony.

UPDATE: Jack on Left in Lowell has posted the full text of Mayor Murphy’s inaugural remarks.

Above from left: Brian Martin, Bill Martin, Jim Milinazzo, Rita Mercier, Niki Tsongas, Richard Howe Sr, Bud Caulfield, Armand LeMay; from October 2010 in front of Lowell City Hall.

Tonight is the final city council meeting (for now, at least) for three councilors. The meeting begins at 6:30 pm and will be televised live on Lowell’s cable channel 10 and will stream on the website of Lowell Telecommunications.

Bud Caulfield (second from right in the above photo) began his council career in 1987 with a 5th place finish. He went on to serve twelve consecutive terms, consistently finishing near the top of the ticket in city elections. Bud served as mayor twice, in 1996-97 and in 2008-09. He did not seek reelection in 2011.

Jim Milinazzo (third from left in the above photo) came onto the council in 2003 with a strong 3rd place finish after having finished 10th in the previous election. He won reelection in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and served as mayor in 2010-11. He was unsuccessful in this 2011 reelection effort, finishing 12th.

Franky Descoteaux served a single term on the city council after finishing a strong 3rd in 2009. In that election, she and Patrick Murphy were credited with being the first candidates for local office in Lowell to make electronic media central to their successful campaigns. Descoteaux has not ruled out running for public office again in the future.

Thank you to these three dedicated public officials for their years of service to the city of Lowell.