Having attended lots of events and meeting where local and state elected officials were in attendance, I’ve learned that a certain deference is given them. Particularly at partisan Democratic meetings. I don’t necessarily grudge elected officials their time to speak or be recognized, but it’s almost like an insult if you fail to acknowledge their presence. Event coordinators run around like gangbusters to be sure they have a full list of every elected official attending an event in order to give them their “due.”
However, this community meeting and open forum was not supposed to be politics-as-usual. Shame on (some) elected officials for feeling more important than the public at a time like this. It is obvious to me that there are still some people stuck in the mode of thinking that this is first and foremost their time, and the public can participate like an afterthought. I hope that they learn from this mistake and change the format at the next meeting. It should be first come, first serve, and mix it up with the rabble, please.
After Bill Martin’s speech at the opening of a local documentary about Western Avenue Studios by my friend and studio neighbor Donna Beale (about 2 months ago at the Revolving [Museum]), where he took a little too much personal credit for Lowell’s artistic resurgence for my comfort (Western Ave, for instance, had nothing to do with this city or its incentives for redevelopment, and everything to do with the out-of-state developer – and we are currently getting not much in the way of support from the city either), and his promise to bring in more people to support the artist community and buy their art so we can make this a vibrant art community instead of one always struggling to survive on a knife’s edge – but with no concrete proposals forthcoming – I became a little skeptical of his leadership. He will probably be annoyed or angry at me for saying it, but too bad. He needs to know that there is a new dawn of politics in Massachusetts and he either can live up to the new standards, or face criticism and defeat. We aren’t interested in politics-as-usual in our state any more.
In the immortal words of the fictional freedom fighter “V” – People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
[X-posted on my own blog, Left in Lowell.]
Elsewise people won’t be interested in a hyperlocal political matter. đŸ™‚ But everyone should be talking about this sort of behavior and how it’s not acceptable.
I must disagree. The local government forum is the only place for people involved in local government to get important points into the discourse. Local officials were not listened to during the Romney-Healey administration.
<
p>
Like it or not, the elected officials were sent by the voters to advocate for cities and towns, and while many may not appreciate the technicalities, the underlying message was critical – especially for people from towns and school committees, who are underrepresented in the working groups.
<
p>
While discussion of restructuring the State Board of Education, changing the charter school funding formula, affordable housing regulations, and engaging with local officials at the Local Government Advisory Commission sounds like insider politics, it does more for cities and towns (and Lowell) than specific requests for more money for the cultural council.
<
p>
Also, while the event was held in Lowell, it was not a Lowell event. It was a statewide event, and the event was focused on the financial structure of state government and the relationship between the state and local municipalities.
Local officials have been doing lots of listening to people in their communities. They have stacks of major demands for change in terms of the structure of the relationship between the state and local governments. Let’s look at the municipal governance forum as a structure for advocating for broad changes, and leave the relatively small line items to the legislators and city councillors who have discretion over these appropriations.
I actually agree 100%with Pablo
Agreed that local officials attending these meetings are great. It means they give a damn about what’s going on. I’d be very happy if my local officials were attending meeting and discussing issues. But the question here is are some people more important to listen to first than others? It’s a public forum, not officials first then the “rest of you” later forum.
whoever signed up first?
If they went on the basis of who arrived first, the politically savvy elected folks who arrived early would have clogged the list. The alternating dual lists actually advanced the regular folks who aren’t used to the “get there early to get on the list” culture of state hearings.
They were alternating between the lists, and everyone got a chance to talk. In fact, both lists were exhausted long before the time was expired. Timelines were not strictly enforced because there was not a pressing demand for time, and everyone was able to speak.
<
p>
I know lots of the stuff is boring, but there are also lots of town officials and school committee members who are feeling left out of the transition teams. Unfortunately, as I listened to people like the mayor of Revere and the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, I heard lots of jargon and technical terms in the form of verbal shorthand to keep presentations relatively short. The team understood referenced to 40B (housing) and technical issues deriving from the law, but anyone without an understanding of the phrase “increasing 40B increases the bottom line number for which we need to achieve 10%” would walk out of this meeting frustrated and confused.
Where you at a different meeting than my coblogger and my readers?
By the way, I must come away from this meeting and a couple of other conversations with my view of the mayor.
<
p>
I like him.
<
p>
If progressives want to have a greater impact on the City of Lowell, they would be better served by moving out some of the silly old dinosaurs who hold power in the city. You know, the ones who insist that Buddhists should recite the Lord’s Prayer. Mayor Martin seems like a reasonable guy. Stop throwing needless rocks and make friends.
I have been watching this city council a long time and have higher expectations than some. Martin runs a decent meeting. Better than Armand Mercier, who used to go so fast through the agenda that I couldn’t even understand it half the time (thank god for LTC and their marquees at the bottom of the screen).
<
p>
However, I am tired of the big grand promises to people in this city which make it what it is, but get no visionary leadership which they need to survive.
<
p>
On affordable house, on the arts, and on several other issues, I feel this council is lacking, and living off the fumes of past successes. If something isn’t fixed soon Lowell will lose its way. Artists I know are already moving out of the city because they can’t sell their work here and make even half of a living. Immigrants cannot afford to stay when they are gentrified out of their homes. We need actual leaders, with strong visions. That’s what got Lowell as far as it has so far. But it cannot be sustained with the current makeup of leadership in my opinion.
<
p>
What am I hoping for? I’m hoping that my strongly worded public exploration of the subject either prompts them to live up to that leadership or else step out of the way.
You have a weak mayor, who is elected from his or her peers for a one year term. Beyond running the meeting, setting the agenda, and doing all the ceremonial fluff, the City of Lowell has set up a system designed to constrain leadership from the mayor.
<
p>
When you consider that, during Mayor Martin’s term, the council went through the difficult and time-consuming process of dismissing and hiring a city manager, that pretty much consumed the political energy of this year’s council.
Looking at the big picture, the year under Martin resulted in gains on the city side and cooperation with the school department.
<
p>
Some things remain undone, but the glass is more than half full.
May I remind everyone here, that our soon to be Lt. Governor is a product of the weak Mayor form or government! Well, it confuses me at times, I can’t say it’s made Tim Murray a less effective City official. I don’t think It’s a huge problem, just hard to understand why an extra layer of officials, but it works here and strong Mayor in Worcester has been rejected by the people more than once.
<
p>
And I agree with Lynne, The elected officials should not have been bumped up….I spend almost every Tuesday monitoring Worcester government and no matter what the subject, the second an elected official ( an some important appointed officials too) enter a room the procedure stops. With the exception of taking a vote, and then directly after, the official gets publicly recognized, and the rules suspended so if they wish to speak, they can do so…and I’m really tired of hearing “Well it’s always been that way” ! They work for us, they have their job because we hired them at the ballot box, and darn it, that doesn’t give them a free pass to grow an over-sized ego!!!!! They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else!
<
p>
If it weren’t for people like Lynne and myself constantly in their faces about these discrepancies, Lord know what they’d try and get away with! (lots more than they do. I enjoy being big sister watchdogging big brother.
<
p>
Do I have ALL the answers, of course not, but awareness is the first step. And publicly stating what we observe, goes along way to begin to create a more transparent government at all levels.
<
p>
Sorry Lynne, I ran way over my 2 cents! Been on my mind for along time. Thanks for pointing out what is obvious to those of us that are there to see it every week!
In Worcester, the mayor gets elected for the full two years of his term, and he runs on the ballot for the position. Lowell mayors rotate every year. It makes the Lowell mayor much weaker than the Worcester mayor.
Or else we’d be talking right now about who’s maneovering to replace Martin…and I don’t remember Armand having only one year, I believe it’s for the full 2 years between elections.
And that political energy did take up a lot at the time, but can these people not do a little multitasking? It’s been 6 months!
<
p>
I’m not saying there’s some good things happening, I’m saying that other very pressing issues cannot wait either. And yes I do think Martin sometimes is talk and not action.
If Martin were really a “friend,” why can’t he deliver on a promise to help artists remain viable in Lowell? He knows there’s a problem (probably because every 5 minutes, I’m writing about it). Where’s the innovative solution?
<
p>
In other words, where’s the beef, Mr. Mayor? And it ain’t gonna all come from the JAM plan.
When the community activist talked about the arts, the selectman from Arlington pointed out that investments in arts pays a dividend in economic activity. You add to the discussion the local option meals tax, which could help Lowell fund the arts that attract the restaurant patrons, it was a good day.
(this is a response to a small comment, not the big picture, which I definitely tend to agree with)
<
p>
Event coordinators run around like gangbusters to be sure they have a full list of every elected official attending an event in order to give them their “due.”
<
p>
One way to measure the importance of a particular meeting or event is to report the list of important people at that event. Now, keep in mind that importance is in the eye of the beholder and is a fuzzy word in this circumstance. Still, a public forum that had two US Senators, a half dozen members of the US House, and a couple of major city mayors in attendance would be seen as a pretty important public forum.
<
p>
Obviously that’s an extreme — but would you want to draw the line between “important enough” and “not important enough” to mention? I sure wouldn’t… but I would want to list the important folks in attendance both as a way to hype the success of my event and as a public acknowledgment that I am appreciative they came to the event.
But I also see how much energy and time it can take away. Sometimes it’s totally inane. I wish it wasn’t set-in-stone “tradition” to have to do this. There are sometimes better uses of time and organization, and I believe this was one of them.
of this practice, which as anyone who has ever attended a legislative hearing on a bill knows is standard operating procedure. The message is, basically, “elected officials are really busy and don’t have the time to sit around and wait while other people talk — they’ve got important work to do. You should be grateful that they’ve taken time out of their packed schedules to testify. The rest of you, however, have nothing better to do than wait around ’til it’s your turn. Certainly, your job as an emergency room physician is much less critical to the well-being of our Commonwealth than that of Representative Blowhard whose presence here takes valuable time away from his fundraising duties.”
ESPECIALLY since they have lackeys…um…AIDES who could sign them in early, if they could be bothered. That whole parachute-in mentality is pompous!
<
p>
That said – I hope this is only a FIRST meeting, as the ideas offred don’t seem relevant to rural areas.
What I heard after reading all the comments, is that everyone who wished to speak, spoke. That in and of itself is major. Also, it makes sense to have those who wish to speak do so in the order in which they signed in. Why reward folk for being late? It is also not only “aides” who sign in those who wish to speak; I know I have signed in friends who were traveling from a distance, and friends have done the same for me. As to letting elected officials speak first, many of them have multiple meetings/h4earings the same day/evening. It is partly recognition of place and position, and partly the idea that these are folk, many of whom are already holding down a full time job, and having a second unpaid job as a selectman/woman or school committee member. So, you know what? I do not mind if they speak first, and leave sooner.
Your selectman, Annie LaCourt, made the trip up from Arlington. She stressed the need for cooreration, and better partnerships with the state. Her message wasn’t a plea for funds, but a determination to use a genuine state/local partnership to improve the delivery of local services.
Annie LaCourt is a relatively new selectman with a passion for governance. Arlilngton IS lucky to have her. I know her and have seen her in action locally.
Here’s what I think