Just sit right back, Salem folk, and you'll hear a tale,

... a tale of a sneaky superintendent who lies, I think even to the school committee who hired her.

Superintendent Ruiz

Let's just skip right over the silly tale that the newly hired this school year high school principal "chose" to resign for personal reasons, shall we? Of course that's a joke. She wasn't given a choice to stick it out. I'm sure the conversation went something like "Hey, you wanna resign quietly and we won't say bad things, or be fired, and we'll tell the public you sucked?" I mean, I get it. A resignation doesn't lead to a contract payoff (maybe) and unemployment claim.

To be clear, Destefano's replacement had been identified and interviewed by February 4, even though she didn't resign until March 13. The new principal first officially contacted the district on January 29, after having a conversation with a Boston ed leader about our "interim principal opening" nobody knew we had. She interviewed on February 4. On February 5 we told her we wanted to move forward and to sit tight. She was offered the job on February 14. I've seen no evidence that anyone else was even considered.

But like I said, let's skip over that "untruth." In Salem Public Schools Superintendent Margarita Ruiz's March 20 letter to the Salem News, she wrote the following:

"The timing of this leadership change did not afford me the ability to conduct the community engaged process that I deeply value in selecting school leaders."

So, per her letter, Ruiz deeply values a community engaged process in selecting school leaders. Why, then, would she be trying to avoid a public process? Below is from an email sent by Ruiz to Pacifico  on February 26. This was almost two weeks after Dr. Pacifico had already been offered the job on February 14, just FYI.

If you value a public process why would you be specifically trying to avoid a public process? I mean, I guess you could end up with a process where the school says "we don't want this person," similar to what happened at Bates when Munoz was first appointed. That's rough when you offered the job to someone a month before it was even available. And when you're first contacted by a candidate on January 29, interview them a few days later, and tell them the day after the interview that you're going to find a way to move forward with them, how thorough was your secret process, anyway? Not thorough enough to uncover the fact that the candidate might be unlicensable without pulling big strings with DESE...

The Salem News must have a very similar pile of emails to the one I have, likely from the same source. (Thank you Salem parent, btw!) They published an article today mostly focused on the principal lacking a license and needing to get one. Waivers aren't particularly uncommon. It's a story, especially in that she's trying to stand on an application submitted in 1995. The snooze leaves out the why. Why doesn't she just apply anew?

The application was actually submitted in 1995

Ruiz explains this in an email to Pacifico. Apparently there were regulation changes in 1998 and 2004 that from the sound of this email would make it much harder (or impossible) for Pacifico to get a license today. Ruiz's goal was to get the license approved prior to announcing the appointment to "avoid scrutiny." If you're doing the right thing, and doing things right, you shouldn't fear scrutiny. How sneaky.

The licensing was important enough to Ruiz that she went directly to DESE chief Jeff Riley on Pacifico's behalf. Why? Because she doesn't want to deal with public scrutiny? Because she doesn't think she can get licensed any other way? The School Committee should really ask.

So, what was the red tape that stopped the original license? It seems from DESE's response that there were requirements not yet met. I'm not sure that's really "red tape." Have the requirements been completed since? Were they completed prior to the regulation changes in 1998? Has the superintendent asked?

Highlighting is mine

I don't know how the requirements changed in 1998 and 2004, and I don't know if Pacifico completed these requirements prior. Calling them "red tape," when Pacifico was working in environments that didn't require this licensing and may not have pursued it sounds at least a little disingenuous. I'm suspicious that getting this 24 year old application approved is the only easy licensing path here, and it will be interesting to see if Riley allows it. Klassy bets he will. Dr. Pacifico has plenty of school leadership experience, though little of it is in public schools. She may be fully qualified. Short of the missing license, of course.

Changing gears, I also think it's interesting that they originally discussed a short interim appointment and it was Ruiz who had to talk Pacifico into extending it to an 18 month term. This delays the public process that our superintendent "deeply values" publicly, but is a situation she tries to avoid in private.

We also must ask, where the hell is the School Committee in all of this? Principal hiring and firing is absolutely a Superintendent responsibility. Generally you see a school committee member sitting on a screening committee for principal hires. Of course, this was all done in secret so nobody was involved with that. On March 28 I asked one school committee member if they were aware that this was going to happen ahead of time, and if they knew that we started discussing the "opening" with Pacifico on January 29, and offered her the job in early February. The response I got was that the committee was not aware. They knew that there was dissatisfaction with the principal, and that the contract likely wouldn't be renewed. They were surprised when it became a mid-year change and had little to no notice. That doesn't sound like the relationship between the superintendent and the committee is particularly strong. They look really bad here, and should demand answers.

In conclusion, Superintendent Ruiz jumped through a bunch of hoops prior to the appointment to try to head off the licensing article you just read in the Snooze, offered the job to Pacifico a month before the position was "available," and likely kept her school committee supervisors in the dark about all of it. She also specifically tried to avoid involving the Salem High School community in the decision, and lengthened the appointment to put that off further. If I were a SHS student or parent I'd demand a lot of answers. If I were a school committee member, I'd demand a lot of answers. I'm not sure we'll really see that from the current School Committee crop (minus Mr. Fleming), but hey, it's an election year. With everything she went through, Ruiz must be really confident that Pacifico is the answer to problems at the High School. She better be right. She's staked her reputation on it at this point.

Your Super Legit Guide to the Salem Elections

Fourscore and seven years ago, our forefathers embarked upon this interminable election season that we, gentle readers, have the duty, nay privilege, to finally take behind the barn and shoot Old-Yeller style. It was a different time; Coke cost a nickel, you couldn’t fill the Hawthorne Ballroom with Salem-specific Facebook page administrators, and we all did a lot less pondering about Nazis.


But we don’t live in those days anymore. We live in these days; the ones mere days away from what has to be one of the screwiest local elections I’ve ever seen. And while I have a moment of your attention I want to slap a lot of wrists, because much of what has made 2017 such a shitshow has been entirely avoidable shenanigans, exaggeration, demonization, and outright embarrassing and childish behavior (not to mention certain candidates' staffers impersonating some bloggers in super insane and creepy ways [hi Turdd!]).


I’m talking to the people who steal, deface, and occasionally weaponize yard signs (whichever color you’re sporting). I’m talking to the conspiracy theorists who disparage dedicated public servants with innuendo and thinly-veiled character assassination. I’m talking to the chest-thumping warriors for the American way who have decided to throw down over a largely symbolic sanctuary ordinance that puts neither them nor their precious money in any danger - and the other chest-thumping warriors for the American way who are more interested in yelling at their neighbors than educating them. I'm also talking to the kind of really special broflakes who will make veiled threats to people, while including their addresses, because they disagree with them about their mayor choice in a local freaking election, like this: 

Jesus Christ, be better than this, people. Credit where credit is due: the candidate who that now defunct Facebook profile has loudly supported quickly jumped into that conversation to condemn that. Props to Paul.

We don't pick our followers

We're talking about a local election here. Other than the winning and losing candidates, none of our lives really change much at all as a result of what happens Tuesday, at least not in the short term. Be better. I'm confident none of our candidates would condone this crap, either. At least they all understand we still share these 8 square miles on Wednesday. Why don't the rest of us?

I’m not against honest debate and differences of opinion. I support them vigorously. I have called out each of the pols I’m about to endorse (in the cases of those running for re-election) over the years when I thought they deserved it. But I did so in clear language, stating exactly what they did that pissed me off - and I was willing to own it if I made a mistake. A lot of them did so too, and they earned my support because they were willing to listen and change. They should earn your votes too.

At the end of the day, Salem is a really, really great city. It’s a great place to raise kids, the richness of experiences available to our kids is astounding. Salem is full of fun people who fight like hell to keep it weird, and while it has a lot of room to grow it’s pretty lucky in having a mayor and councillors who actually care about people and want to do the right thing. That’s a pretty damn rare treat. And if there’s a simple roadmap I can give to decoding this year’s Byzantine nonsense, it’s that you should be very wary of any politician whose pitch is based in convincing you Salem sucks. It just really doesn’t. There's a reason we love it.


With that out of the way, endorsements.

MAYOR: Kim Driscoll. No question. I don’t think Paul Prevey has run a particularly good campaign, nor do I think he’s made a good enough case for himself in terms of leadership or vision for Salem. I've heard plenty of "it sucks" with not a ton of data behind it. The data I have seen has been largely skewed. He was a Ward Councillor whose main claim to fame was kowtowing to the MPNA and holding up the very senior center he’s trying to bludgeon Kim with not having built. (But seriously, there's an actual elevator shaft rising from the completed foundation, go check it out!) He was defeated in Ward 6 by a then-unknown Beth Gerard, and wasted taxpayer funds on demanding a recount (within his rights) that was well outside of the percentages that any recount could possibly hope to overcome. Now he's saying that he'll be a budget hawk. He had his chance for 8 years, and found very little to trim. He chaired Administration & Finance, and touts that budget experience, but 3 years into it literally said that "I still don't understand a fraction of what the budget is about." That budget analyst, by the way, found nothing to cut in the Driscoll budgets that they reviewed. They were eventually let go as unnecessary as the budgets were determined to be solid.

But the fact that I think this race is going to be close should be a wakeup call to Kim that there are a lot of people who don’t find development transparent and have real concerns about the delivery of core city services. They aren't necessarily wrong. That’s a legitimate criticism, and she should really listen, but it’s not enough of a reason to vote her out when it’s her leadership that has in large part turned Salem around. She inherited finances that had us nearing receivership (thanks Usovicz). She's helped turn that around. We have savings now. Our credit rating has rebounded to the highest we've had in the city's history. We aren't paying last year's school bills out of this years budget anymore. The ops have been professionalized. The first job interview question isn't "who do you know?" That's an (big) improvement over the prior administration.

I truly believe that Paul Prevey is a good man. He cares, and wants what he thinks is best for Salem. I tend to disagree with him on most of it. I think this is a tough race for him to run, and he's taking what he can get. We may all do the same trying to take on a really well-known, mostly-popular, monied incumbent. My big issue is that this is really an executive/CEO sort of job. Kim Driscoll has shown she can do that job. She has those management bona fides. I've posed the question a few times about how many people and departments Paul has managed, and what sorts of budgets he's built. The answers aren't those of somebody ready to take the CEO position of an org Salem's size.

I feel the need to throw this in again. Whoever wins, we're all neighbors on Wednesday. Paul winning isn't evil prevailing. Kim winning isn't evil prevailing. Let's all get over ourselves.


WARD 1: Bob McCarthy. I don’t have much of a sense of Annalyssa Gypsy Murphy, but Bob has been a solid voice of reason for a while. He could and should do a lot better job representing the Point, though, and taking credit for what he does. Bob, if a constituent asks for something, and it happens, but you don't tell them that you made it happen, it looks like you didn't get it done for them. That said, I think councillor Murphy would be completely fascinating.


WARD 2: Christine Madore is probably the most qualified candidate running in any Ward this year. Vote for Christine. She understands how government works, has a planning background sorely missing on the council, and gets one of my very few completely unreserved votes. 

Queen Mary’s name recognition was just enough to split votes for Murphy and Whittier in the primary, and her frankly absurd sense of entitlement (to the point where her only campaign promises have been to check her email and override the traffic and parking commission (actual professionals) on resident parking), and she couldn't be bothered to spell her own name correctly) has done nothing but embarrass her since. Her doggie-style dog-free party was literally nuts to the point it went viral. I'd also encourage anyone who knows any long-term city employees to ask them what the "first lady" was like during Stan's administration. I'm sure Parks and Rec set up birthday parties on Winter Island for everyone, right? 

WARD 3: I think Lisa Peterson is probably pretty smart, but could be running a more solid campaign. Showing up at the public hearing around the Sanctuary for Peace Ordinance with a videographer and then distancing herself from what she said when she figured out it might not go over well in Ward 3 is a bad look. That said, she’s also running against of my least favorite pols in the city. The dirty tricks the Lovely machine is willing to engage in to keep their fingers on the ledge are breathtaking. You’d think they were the Underwoods instead of some two-bit politicos from the North Shore. At any rate, he should be turned out on his ear from the city council. Hell, I think Joan would secretly thank you. Lisa Peterson should, but won’t, win. It should be closer than it will be, and I should be happier making this endorsement than I am.


WARD 4: The city’s weirdest race! Since Robert A McCarthy (aka Roberto Negron, and isn't that name change weird and unanswered) has basically been hidden in an underground bunker since March and only occasionally remembers he’s running, this race is largely between Flynn and Ana Campos. I endorse Ana Campos; I can’t in good conscience recommend voting for a Trump supporter (though he’s toned down or locked down the stuff on his Facebook page), and she has relevant experience as an architect and a nice bit of grit to her to have even attempted a write-in campaign her first time out of the gate. I freely admit she’s a long shot, though. I think 15% would be an amazing showing.


WARD 5: Josh Turiel. He’s not perfect, but he’s a good politician, a good friend, and a good man. He could talk less, sometimes, and poke the bear less, often, except he just can’t. Polly… well… she and I just disagree on almost everything.


WARD 6: Beth Gerard. She’s been a consistent level head on the council and has done a good job balancing one of the most gerrymandered Wards in the city (along with 1) so that it’s not all Mack Park, all the time. That may not have won her too many fans in the neighborhood association, but it’s enough to make it so that everyone she represents gets a fair shake. Also, she’s the councillor who knows the budget more than any other right now. I’ve asked her many budget questions. Frequently she’s already asked the question I’m posing. As for Nadine, she's out there railing on developments she frequently approved as a member of the planning board. Short memory.


WARD 7: A slightly worn gym sock. An empty packet of Raisinets stuck the the floor of a movie theater. Lincoln Chafee. Failing that, Steve Dibble, because you have no other choice. Ward 7 councillors basically have the job as long as they want it because nobody ever runs against them. I don’t think he’s a bad person, but I’m concerned at about how much he feels the need to (poorly) prove that with really long-winded speeches on the floor. He's done a lot with Salem youths; chess, Boy Scouts, playground builds, etc.


AT LARGE: Since the beginning of this race, David Eppley’s criticism of the obstructionist antics of ¾ of the incumbent At-Large councillors has been spot on. They've kept 50 items locked up in committee so they can't be voted on this year. Tom Furey probably did himself no favors with the anti-future contingent in Salem by claiming repeatedly to be the “wind beneath Kim’s wings,” but the rest of them are so determined to be albatrosses around her neck it’s hard to blame him. Honestly, I understand where people are coming from wanting to wipe the slate clean and vote out ALL of the incumbents, though Tom is a good guy and has done well by the city. Nobody challenges his motivations.


It seems a foregone conclusion after the primary that Domingo is going to get in, and he’s 100% right that it’s past time for people of color on the city council. I wish the best chance of achieving that wasn’t an alleged slumlord (Butler St. ask the building department) who’s committed tax fraud (Here's the short version.) that largely harmed his own community, and I don’t understand why so many are willing to give him a pass. I know I’m not. “It was 9 years ago” is literally only because he got caught. For like the fourth time. Every time the feds shut him down he found a loophole, like faking e-filer ID numbers. Do I really need to link this shit still? Jesus people! He literally signed an agreement admitting to all of this. Here's the long version of the IRS complaint.

This was not a "screw the man" victimless crime

By the way, go check his campaign finance forms. He’s promising everything to everyone, which is super smart on your first election (check Milo's first election totals), but his donations (especially pre-primary) scream one-sided #cahoots. You'd think with his previous financial crimes that he'd make sure his campaign finances were pure, and yet we see several illegal contributions on his forms, as well as a bunch of incomplete info, as well. Examples below.




LLC contributions are specifically prohibited by law. I'm sure Attorney Richard, address unknown isn't a person.

This is all a week ago, not nine years ago.

So who am I endorsing? David Eppley for sure; he’s the councillor who has most consistently shown an at-large style vision and he’s the right kind of independent for a city like Salem; neither wind beneath the mayor’s wings nor axiomatically against everything she’s for. Jeff Cohen and Liz Bradt are also slam dunks. And for your last vote, it’s up to you. Tom has mine, but realistically I think Domingo is unbeatable. This is definitely a slate election. So there's mine.


SCHOOL COMMITTEE: It does a nice job putting the lie to the sincerity of Paul Prevey and his fan’s critique of the Salem public schools that their only solution is ‘replace Kim’ and they have not whispered a word about this race. But then again who has? School committee has flown almost entirely under the radar, and voters will have one candidate on the ballot (Jean Martin) who has withdrawn from the race. Who knows what happens if she's a top three vote getter? Not me.

I couldn't endorse Amanda Campbell more. She's a 10-year teacher. The first eight were in Salem Public Schools. We haven't had anyone this close to the modern classroom on the school committee in years. She's currently the ELL coordinator in the city of Lynn, which is also really valuable experience for our student population. If you don't know what ELL stands for you should just vote for who I recommend. I'm also voting for Andi French and Manny Cruz. French is a Salem parent and co-president of Salem SEPAC. If you don't know what a SEPAC is, you should just take my recommendations. Cruz was a late decision for me. I think this is a "first step" for him, and I just don't love that. However, he really sold me during the school committee candidate forum. He clearly did his homework and knew what he was talking about. I'm confident he'll do the work. If he does want to move on, he'll have to.

I'm not voting for Ana Nuncio. Many of you won't like that. It boils completely down to this. I filed a public records request when the voting issues were hitting the fan, asking for correspondence received by city officials regarding complaints of vote suppression, intimidation, etc. I received a large packet in the mail, with the promise that more was coming. The more never did, which is a possible public records complaint for another day. In the packet was a tall pile of emails written by Nuncio, sent from her Seven Gables (her employer) email address, during hours that one must assume by the average work week are work hours. (See one example below.) This is the same Seven Gables that can't afford a new roof and asked for CPA funds for it. I can't imagine they're knowingly paying her to do LLC work on their time. It makes me question her on the job commitment, and this is a job. I just can't. 

QUESTION 1: Yes on 1. Go read the actual question and tell me what's objectionable. Voting no on this question would be an embarrassment for decades, and set back statewide progress on immigrant protections. We should be ashamed to even be voting on this question, but since we are, anything other than yes is unconscionable. Yes on 1. Be on the right side of history, people! My God!

Thanks for wading through all of that. Above all else, please go vote. And after that remember that we're all neighbors, no matter the result on Tuesday.

- The Cooperative

The tale of the very special broflake

OK... Let's talk about a very special broflake, and his broflake-enabling Salembrity lawyer.

Do any of you guys remember Dillon Destefano? He was the Endicott sophomore student from New Jersey who was arrested, expelled, and convicted of multiple assault and batteries after going on a knockout game binge across campus one night almost exactly three years ago. He later pleaded guilty and admitted to randomly sucker punching a trio of students he didn't even know. He also admitted to threatening a witness with his Jersey mob ties. He stated that he was SO drunk that he had no control over himself. The freshman hockey player also said he was totally roided up at the time. He was caught in part because he bragged about his crimes afterwards.

Special Broflake Dillon Destefano

Well, special broflake is back! Now he's suing Endicott, and their president, Dr. Richard Wylie. "Why on earth!?" you may ask. Well, his suit alleges that Endicott, and Dr. Wylie, had a responsibility to babysit him, and they should have supervised his night time activities better, and protected him from himself and his own bad decisions. (Because he's a child?) There are an awful lot of night time activities on campuses across the land that nobody wants colleges sticking their nose in. Just ask Gordon College how well that can go. How Endicott and Wylie in particular were supposed to know that broflake was a steroid rage-head (he said he was under the influence of PEDs) is beyond me, or any other thinking person.

So, this isn't a criminal proceeding. Destefano has no right to counsel here. A lawyer has to agree to accept the case to file the suit. There's no duty there. If you'd presented this premise to me, I'd have said that no lawyer would take this dog of a case. Who took this case? Your Salem Ward 3 City Councilor Steve Lovely, of the Lovely Law Group filed the suit on Destefano's behalf, on the last day before the statute of limitations would have kicked it out. I have to ask, what case wouldn't Lovely take, at that point?

Am I being dramatic? I don't think so. (I mean, probably a little, but) Lovely took the case of the dude who walked up to three different students he didn't know, and in one night sucker punched all three, leaving one with a completely shattered jaw, and another with a broken eye socket and collapsed sinuses. Surgeries all around! The state alleged that after the eye socket, "he was seen on surveillance video from the campus 'almost mocking' the victim, appearing to laugh as he re-enacted the way the victim reeled back." Guy then said, "the college made me do it! I want to sue them!" and Lovely signed on.

He's ... in college. I know it's been a long time since I was in college, but I very much remember at the very beginning, literally on the first day, getting the speech. "You're adults now. We don't call you boys and girls. You're men and women. You, and only you, are responsible for yourselves. We aren't your babysitters. We aren't going to tell you to go to bed, or get up, or go here, or go there. You're responsible for yourselves and your own actions, and you'll feel the consequences of those actions, good or bad." Apparently a lot has changed, at least in the eyes of the special broflake community. Now it's the college's duty to babysit students, and provide a warm womb for them to emerge from fetus-hood.

I've read the 12-page lawsuit. Let me start by saying that it simply strains credulity. There are facts that Destefano admitted to during his criminal proceeding, like randomly sucker punching people, that are somehow changed in the suit to a victim, "who charged at Destefano." My favorite "fact" is the allegation that President Wylie "hosted parties on-campus and encouraged the students to consume alcoholic beverages without regard to the ages of the students." I mean, come on. So the suit alleges that the kid drank insane amounts at one private party, went to another private party and drank insane amounts, and then on a stroll across campus, while intoxicated beyond belief, mustered the coordination and power to brutally, brutally assault 3 people, causing severe injuries. And... this is everyone's fault, except for broflake.

I'm scared of a world where this lawsuit is a thing. I'm scared of a world where we enable our younger people to think they're this lacking in responsibility for their own decisions and actions. I'm scared of the world where an elected official looks at this case and agrees to take it. I mean, really? I want elected officials with better judgment and ethics than that.

What's next? "Did you get a sunburn at Dead Horse Beach? Did the city not provide you with sunscreen? Call Steve!"

What's next? "Are you a rapist? Was your victim asking for it with a super short skirt? You can't be held responsible for that! Let's sue her! Call Steve!"

Just yikes.

On the Eve of the 2015 City Election ...

I've procrastinated this as much as possible, but many of you have asked who I am or would be voting for in the races on tomorrow's ballot. So here I go. As usual, this is just one person's opinion, though probably a person who has researched and followed these things more than most. I'm opinionated about most of these people, based on public, non-public, and private observations and conversations. If you're voting you should be opinionated, too. Use your own judgment, and your ballot, please.

Ward 2 City Councillor:

This one couldn't be any easier for me to pick. 100% Heather Famico deserves re-election. Councillor Famico has a unique blend of thoughtfulness and a willingness to question both the city and her constituents. The former isn't necessarily uncommon among politicians. The latter is utterly uncommon among the political class. Ward 2 is used to having a Ward Councillor who immediately takes up the cause of whichever favored constituent shrieks the loudest, whether they make sense or not. Famico's response is much more nuanced. "I'll have to research this and its impact on the entire ward before spittle flies out of my mouth like it did from Sosnowski's, but if it makes sense I'll take up the cause with vigor." (That's a massive paraphrase, and not the way she'd ever say it, but it's her process.) Nobody with sensible requests should have a problem with that.

For her opponent to claim she lacks substance (and he has) is simply laughable (except the parts that reek of sexism and ageism). He also can't seem to decide why he's running. The reason keeps changing as the last one loses traction. During his SATV video he said he was running because he went to some meetings about the proposed revamp of the Gateway Center project, and never heard "his ward councillor" speak in opposition. That's certainly odd. She spoke at the 9/17 Planning Board meeting chastising the developer for failing to provide information. She spoke at the August 26 Design Review Board meeting criticizing the design. I was at that one, Jenkins wasn't. At the July 30 Planning Board meeting where the Gateway Center proposal was introduced, Famico criticized the density and design, and referred to the developer as a used car salesman. Jenkins was at that meeting, along with his handler/ghost-writer Mr. Carr. They were both close enough to me to touch. I guess they just weren't listening. Or it's just another one of the deceits that seem to be infecting that campaign as it winds down. Of the Gateway Center, JenkCarr says that you know the project is bad because it requires 6 Zoning Board of Appeals variances. More on that later.

In one of his unattributed flyers (campaign finance law violation?) Jenkins (really Carr) discusses two developments in the Bridge Street Neck area. First he praises a project at Bridge and Planters (and yes, Jotim, it's Planters, not Planter) for adding 6 housing units on a .336 acre lot. Next, he rails on the proposed Ward 2 Social Club project (rightly). Only, the gang that can't shoot straight has more lies here. First, in multiple places they say the lots "appear to be the same size." Um, not close. The Planters St. lot is a third of an acre (rounded by 0.003 acres). The Ward 2 Social Club lot is just under (.957) a full acre. So basically three times the size. In fact, the currently proposed density is nearly identical. He also leaves out the fact that the Planters project was approved under the watch of Councilor Famico, who was involved in the hearings that led to a reduction in units. He also fails to mention her role in getting the Social Club project whittled from the original 28, to 24, to 18, her still current opposition, and it sounds like there's another reduction coming that will end with less density than the Planters project he raves about. A project, by the way, that required 5 Zoning Board of Appeals variances. So 6 is "must be awful." 5 is beautiful. Can't shoot straight.

I know, this is dry stuff, but for a city councillor, the devil is often in the details. It's important to understand them, and just as important to be truthful about them, rather than manipulating them to fit whichever smear piece you're filling with untruths.

Who wins? I don't have the foggiest idea. I'm scared for us. I hear Tim is a decent bloke. Some of the people he's surrounded himself with really aren't. The tactics they're resorting to at the last minute are really turning people off, and he's letting them run the show.

Famico has done the job, and done it well. Ward 2 residents would be nuts to try someone new (who resembles the last guy more every day). Ward Councillors are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.


Ward 3 City Councillor:

I'd vote Lise Hansen-Damato in a heartbeat. She'd bring boundless energy, as well as the perspective of a family with young children, which is sorely missing on the council. She's smart, and tough. I can speak from personal experience that she has no problem speaking hard truths. We could really use her voice. Demographically she's way more similar to me than her opponent.

Steve Lovely knows the job, so I can't begin to guess why he wants to go back 30 years to do it again. Admittedly that makes me skeptical. It would seem like a personal step back to me. He's married to our State Senator, so there is power in the house already. I just don't get it.

Who wins? Lovely has every advantage. Basically a lifer. Former councilor, using our current senator as a campaign prop (and he really is). Ask the houses they've knocked on together how that one goes. I wonder if all of those repurposed Joan signs and stickers appear on his campaign finance report as in kind contributions as they should. I asked if anyone wanted to go pull everyone's for me, but I had no takers. They aren't online yet. But yeah, Lovely wins handily. He knows what the job entailed 30 years ago. I imagine it hasn't changed all that much. He'll probably get literally the same chair he had back then, too.

Ward 6 City Councillor:

Ward 6 is weird. I was fine with Paul Prevey in 2013, but I went with Beth Gerard because I knew her well enough to see what she could bring to the table. And if you actually look at what she did (as opposed to what the Mack Park Neighborhood Association says), she did all that and more. Sure, we had snow last winter. Broke records. All the councilors tried to help, but how many of them actually went out to shovel intersections? Yep, Gerard (actually, Legault did as well - and yes, I endorse him also). Lombardini says North Street should have been plowed curb to curb. I wish she had been councilor, so you'd see how meaningless that statement is. Gerard works really hard at the job, has gotten a lot done over in North Salem, and treated everybody well, regardless of their neighborhood. Her predecessors didn't always do that. Has she learned to brag the way all the other ones have? I guess not well enough, because there's actually people planning to vote for Pam.

And one more thing, though I hesitate to mention it, but I know (and trust) one of the sources well: I've heard that some people trying to recruit votes for Pam are actually telling people they shouldn't vote for Gerard because she's Jewish. I've heard this from more than one source. And that's despicable. This is 2015, not 1915. We've grown up since the last century, haven't we? I'm sure Lombardini wouldn't support this behavior, but company you keep, and all. If I dismiss this as utterly false, and if you do I get it, I'd still vote Gerard.

So who wins? I think this is close, but Lombardini. Really, this one feels to me like a referendum on how much power the ward wants Rosie's Mack Park Neighborhood Association to wield.

Ward 7 City Councillor:

In Ward 7, we weren't supposed to have a race this year. Instead, it was supposed to be my biennial write up about how Joe O'Keefe should start thinking about hanging it up. Well, I miss him, dammit.

So instead we have a weird write-in race between Steve Dibble and Bill Luster. From what I can tell, both of them are OK guys and they both annoy me equally, I think. Bill argues on these pages sometimes and even though I think he's full of it I enjoy that he'll come here and play. Dibble is a man who is very important, and he'll tell you so. He also counts all his signs as well as all Luster's.

Luster took the either brave or foolish step of calling out SOS for their confrontational strategies in dealing with SSU. I don't think that wins him friends on Lafayette Street or Raymond Road. But he may be right. I'm not endorsing either one of them, but I look forward to two years of making fun of the winner. They should keep me busy.

Who wins? I'd guess Dibble based on signs, but signs don't vote. Even Luster's nearest neighbors don't seem enthused by his candidacy, so I guess I'll stick with the signs.

At-Large City Councillor:

I'm voting for William Legault (last on your ballot). After that, it's a shitshow of undecided for me.

Legault is the voice we need. He gets to sensible and cuts through the bullcrap on just about everything, even if it's a verbose voyage.

Elaine Milo is just kind of there. I don't know much more about her opinions on issues now than I did before she took office. The next unpopular opinion she publicly takes will be the first. I'm not a fan of that, but there's a lot of talking in that chamber, so I except it. She'll top the ticket, and I'll probably fill in her oval.

I've covered the fraud record of Domingo Dominguez on Facebook. Please go read it there. No vote from me.

I think Furey's heart is in the right place, but his view of his job (support any mayor) and my view of his job (question any mayor) are pretty different.

Jerry Ryan would be in my top 4, but I may not cast a vote for him, as he's the most likely to unseat Legault. They were separated by maybe 20 votes in the last election. It was close, but I'm not looking it up. Sorry.

Sargent is not my cup of tea, but he has plenty of support and will be back. He doesn't need my vote.

Tyler Carlton I'd think about in a few years. He has a future in politics. That both is, and isn't, a compliment.

Who wins? I'd guess the four incumbents. If signs voted, Dominguez, especially if by size of signs. I'd say Ryan is most likely to take a seat, and Legault most likely to lose one. I'm basing that entirely on two years ago. Vote Legault. I may still bullet that. Or Legault and Milo, and Ryan.

And Sawicki, just no.

School Committee:

I'm not really dazzled by our School Committee choices this year. I know a lot of people including many of my friends are for Kris Wilson. She may be great, but she does nothing to convince me I should be using one of my votes on her, and her debate performance was lackluster. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if she tops the ticket. She seems to know everybody, and all the usual suspects are on her side (and I think convinced her to run), it seems.

I do have an enthusiastic vote, and it's for Andrea French. I've met her a few times, and she's smart, passionate, and really committed. She has run the special ed interest group SEPAC, and she is just as well-liked with every faction we have in the schools - teachers, special ed parents, pro-charter parents, anti-charter parents, and the crazy faction. She was on the superintendent search committee, and after talking to her I'm convinced that she won't be an automatic knee-jerk vote on anything. She'll be thoughtful and try to do things right. I think she’s a really good one. More than anything, she's just a regular old parent. We need more of those on the school committee.

Mary Manning was the principal at Collins as it descended into chaos. She's not solely responsible for that, of course. But she also denied it was happening. I can't get over that. Her teachers were extremely loyal to her, which says good things. She was also endorsed by the Salem Teachers Union, I believe. I have mixed feelings about that.

I've never done it before, but I'm voting for Jim Fleming this time. We're turning over two seats, and have two more still in their first term. We can use his experience. He also tends to question the thinking of the majority, and that's useful. I disagree with him plenty, but at this point his voice is needed. When it's not in Florida. That still bugs me. I am voting for him, though. Right? Yes.

My third vote goes to Joanne Kennedy. She's another parent of a young child. One who decided she couldn't get what she needed from our schools. She's putting her time where her mouth is and saying she's willing to try to fix it. She's a huge proponent of a rounded curriculum and plenty of recess time. I buy that wholeheartedly. I'd be fascinated to watch her have to transition from critic to solver. I think she'd do it. She should have run on her maiden name.

Who wins? Wilson, Manning, Fleming, in some order.

And Sawicki, just no.

Part of me wants to see every non-incumbent making stupid promises win so that we can see the fallout from that. In the end, I like this place too much for that.

For a change, some interesting city council agenda items

The city council meets tonight at 7. There are some interesting agenda items, in addition to the regular housekeeping stuff.

First, passage of the city budget for the next year is on the docket. I believe it passed through the subcommittee with no changes to the original proposal. That seems like an immense testament to the diligent work of the finance department and the mayor, unless it's a dereliction of council's duty to vet the truly worthwhile spending of taxpayer money. I don't know which. I will say that the city budget is extremely detailed and consumable. The school budget, not so much.

Vesuvius, down on Paradise Road, is seeking a Home Rule beer and wine license. That won't sit well with Councilor Sargent. He tends to hate Home Rule licenses outside of the downtown, but especially towards his South Salem home.

Yet another one way trial behind Saltonstall is on the agenda. The solution to parents driving like assholes is to treat them as such. It's not to inconvenience an entire neighborhood for the parents of the special Saltonstall snowflakes. The last trial appeared to be an utter failure, if for no other reason than that there was no success metric defined for the trial. I'm guessing that's the case with this one, too. No parking signs were added last year. How many tickets have been written? Signs don't do anything if they aren't enforced.

Councilor Siegel brings an order that the A&F committee meet to review, compare, and discuss why the Salem budget is $30 million dollars more than Beverly's. I have some thoughts on this to share.

First, check your math and methodology, councilor. Salem's "budget" includes our enterprise funds (water, sewer, trash). The Beverly budget figure Siegel is using excludes them on that side of the bridge. That's about half the figure Siegel cites. Attend a budget hearing (0 for 4 years) and you might know that simple lack of an apples to apples comparison. Our school costs are about 5 million dollars higher, driven in part by higher ELL and Special Education costs. With similarly sized student populations asking why we spend so much more on special education is a valid question that ought to be asked. We spend over 5 million more on police and fire, as well. Would the good councilor suggest we cut in those areas to match Beverly? If I can learn all of this, why can't Todd? I'd expect a councilor to be able to answer this question, rather than pose it.

So, ordering A&F to meet to discuss? That's grandstanding at its worst, considering they just did exactly that for the last few weeks. You were the only councilor who missed ALL of it. The wording of the order, which contains an untrue comparison, is either disingenuous or woefully uninformed. I'm not sure which is worse. Expect Siegel, who again, skipped the entire budget process (the only one to do so), to be the one councilor to vote against passage of the budget. Shame on Ward 3 if nobody runs against him. OK, really I don't think there should ever be an opposition free race, so shame on all wards except 6 so far.

The new trash contract with Waste Management will be up for approval tonight. Councilors seem to be trying to leap over each other to bow before our new trash collection saviors. I get it. Northside utterly shit the bed on us. Their service level started really slipping before our epic winter began, and never recovered. Something must be done.

But man, we're really moving fast on this. We're about to enter into a TEN YEAR CONTRACT, and we never even put it out to bid. You've probably seen some of the details, but allow me to review. For a $300,000 or so annual increase in cost to the city, Waste Management will pick up a smaller amount of trash from each household every week (65 gallons vs. 90), and a limited (for the first time in years) amount of recycling from each household, instead of currently unlimited, but instead of weekly, only every other week. That doesn't sound like a great deal to me. We get single stream recycling, which I love, and they'll probably actually pick the stuff up, which is great, too. But going from weekly to bi-weekly recycling is a step backward. Limiting the amount of recycling is, as well. Ten years, signed under the gun, is a long time. Limited, bi-weekly recycling will probably make us look like a dinosaur by then.

The other thing that concerns me is that having attended some of the hearing with WM, I heard an awful lot of "I don't know," "we'll see," "we'll do whatever needs to be done," "we could maybe make an exception" and stuff like that. That's all well and good, but it's not in writing. Contracts aren't there for when things go well, they're your only protection when they don't. This one seemed to have a lot of unknowns. I think the new mandatory toters that people will be required to use will cause problems in our tight little dense burg, as well. They're large, and take up plenty of space. If full, they may be hard to navigate. What those who don't have room to store them, or the physical ability to maneuver them, are to do remains unknown.

I'm not saying WM isn't the right vendor. They may be. But a ten year multi-million dollar contract may call for slowing your roll just a little bit. Get those unanswered questions answered before you make that commitment.

Also on the agenda is the concept of allowing 25 reserved parking spaces in each of the two city garages, at an annual rate of $1,500. This is an interesting concept. I'm undecided, and it would probably depend on the setup and how assignment of these spaces would work whether or not I'd support them. I also wonder if $1500 is the right price. If you get ten requests it's too much. If you get 150 it's too cheap. Details are very light, and depend on which city official you ask, so I'd guess this stays in committee. I'd point out this is a much smaller commit than the WM one discussed above, as well.

Anyway, that's the stuff that stuck out in the agenda to me. Feel free to follow along tonight.

Salem Superintendent Finalists: Ceilings and Floors

Here's a very short shelf life blog post. The Salem School Committee meets this afternoon (don't want a lot of eyes? Meet at 3PM on a weekday) to discuss moving forward with one of our superintendent finalists. I attended all of their school committee interviews, which were sparsely attended, and the community forum with Ayinde Rudolph. So here are one person's impressions of each, and the order I'd rank them if I were a school committee member.

Let me get this out of the way, first. They all struck me as highly intelligent people. They can probably all do the job. If I were on the school committee I'd be looking for the highest ceiling, versus the lowest risk. What do I want in a superintendent? I want someone who I believe can be a truly dynamic and inspiring leader. We need someone who can build trust with, and inspire students, teachers, staff, school committee and parents. So I'm coming at this from that prism. Here are the candidates, in the order that they interviewed with the school committee.

Ayinde Rudolph

Ayinde Rudolph: I got to see Rudolph twice, and chat with him a little bit. Probably gives him an unfair advantage with me. That said, on paper, I liked him the most before they came to town. He's had classroom experience, as well as 8 years of administrative experience in the Charlotte Mecklenburg schools (a large, urban district with high poverty), with 2 years as an assistant principal, and 6 years as a principal. I'm just going to state this as a fact. Rudolph had a presence about him that the other two lacked. He was engaging and personable. I buy him completely as someone who can motivate and build bridges that have been torched over the years. He also has a doctorate from Vanderbilt. Two school committee members previously expressed an inability to support any candidate (didn't think they should be even considered) without a terminal degree. Rudolph has the only terminal degree in the bunch. He would also have two students at SHS next year, and a future Kindergartner. He talked frequently about asking himself if the services being provided to students in Salem would be good enough for them. I like that.

When asked if he had questions for the school committee, his question to them was whether or not they had the guts to make tough, unpopular decisions. It was better than any question posed by the other candidates. I'm all in on Rudolph as having the highest ceiling for what he can bring to the district. If teachers, staff, students are following any of these three through a wall it's him. I'd put him between the other two candidates for lowest floor, based on level of experience similar to this job.

Ventura Rodriguez

Ventura Rodriguez: Rodriguez was clearly quite intelligent, as well. I could see the potential for him to be a strong, engaging, inspiring leader, but I have a lot more questions with him. First, he simply has less and weirder experience. He has eight years in a classroom as a teacher, with four in San Francisco, and four in Kenya. He also spent four and a half years as principal of a charter school in New York City. In that role, he supervised 35 people. Running the Salem Public Schools seems like a big jump from that. He also has been a full time student for the last three years, and is basically doing a residency with DESE for the last 9 months. I shouldn't have to remind you that at least one School Committee member views DESE like the devil.

During his school committee interview, he said he's not all charter all the time, and specifically chose to move away from that world. There are reports that earlier in the day all of his stories were charter, charter, charter. The other thing I feel the need to point out from his interview is that each candidate was asked to facilitate the beginning of a SC workshop on the student assignment policy. Rodriguez modified the assignment for himself to jump into the middle, and then spent literally the entire ten minutes talking himself. That's not good facilitation. On that exercise, he was clearly the worst of the three.

On the ceiling front, I'd rank Rodriguez second. At the same time, I'd say he has the lowest floor, rated purely on his having less administrative and leadership experience. He also lacks any public school experience, which may be both a positive (fresh perspective) and negative (could totally combust.)

Margarita Ruiz

Margarita Ruiz: Competent is the word that comes to mind with Ruiz. Stable, capable, steady, as well. What I didn't get from her was "inspiring." Not really at all. In fact, I zoned out completely several times while she spoke. For the committee, she's probably the safest choice. I'd tell you that as an inspiring, engaging leader, I'd say her ceiling is lowest. At the same time, her floor is probably the highest, as she's run a section of the Boston Public Schools that is similar in size to our district. She has not, in that time, had to deal with a school committee, and things like that, but her job experience is most closely aligned to our position. She also did the best job on the facilitation exercise, followed by Rudolph. She involved the committee most, and you know they love to talk.

I'm aware of two situations where she's alleged to have directly lied, or changed her story between earlier in the day, and when she was before the school committee. I didn't witness them, myself, but the sources are respected.

It really appeared to me that she walked into the room as the favorite. I can't begin to guess why. What I can say, is that the School Committee frequently broke the protocol they had set for the interviews by asking several follow ups during the standard questions, starting with the mayor right from the first question. They also allowed her interview to go a full 15 minutes longer than the time limit they had enforced on the other two candidates. Additionally, why wasn't the candidate who lives in Salem, and likely has SATV at home, the first to interview? Does anyone believe she wasn't watching Rudolph's interview on TV? The School Committee also had a different level of attention and interest during Ruiz's interview, and I don't think it was caused by the candidate. Was it the aura of the giant Boston Public School district? I can't guess, but at times it almost seemed like they were drooling over her. At one point Mr. Fleming, who had screeched about how they MUST demand a terminal degree, told her how unimportant it was for her to have one, and he was nearly applauding her answers.

As I said, Ruiz is probably the safe choice. Dr. Russell was the safe choice last time. Cameron before that. She reminds me more of Cameron than Rusell, but I'm sure she's more capable than Cameron. Like him, though, I can picture her telling different groups what they want to hear, even if the messages conflict. We've tried the safest. The safest hasn't worked. We should try the inspiring.

If I were ranking them I'd absolutely rank Rudolph first. I believe we need high ceiling and potential, so I'd put Rodriguez second, though I struggle with that when comparing floors. I'd put Ruiz third, but I fully expect the school committee to take the safe, if less potentially inspiring, choice. Let me also add, I only have access to the info I have. I think, and hope they have more. I'm only going on resumes and interviews.

Let me finish with this. I think the school committee is really rushing to judgment trying to make a decision today. Two of the finalists spent the entire day in the district yesterday, meeting with many, many people. The School Committee hasn't had enough time to truly gather feedback and review it in detail. If you say you want an open and collaborative process you need to allow enough time for that to happen. They aren't really allowing that time.

The 2014 state election: Say no to Coakley

It's election time again. Here's one Klassy ballot, at least the interesting parts.

Governor:

I generally loathe the concept of voting against a candidate, but my approach in this case is absolutely #ABC (Anybody But Coakley). Charlie Baker gets my vote, but not particularly because of anything about him. He seems OK enough. A non-ideologue Republican check on a far too unbalanced to one end of the political spectrum legislature. I'd be a little more concerned about him in a federal election, but we aren't in danger of too much Republican influence in Massachusetts. I also really like Evan Falchuk. If he were the more likely to beat Coakley I'd gladly vote for him. In this case, a vote for Falchuk is, unfortunately, as good as a vote for Coakley.

So, on to Coakley. Please read this. I'll wait. It was written by Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the 1980s daycare ritual abuse hysteria. She's a foremost expert on the topic.

So now that you've read that, I have a few questions. How do you vote for Martha Coakley if you're a woman? She seems to have a disrespect for your ability to make your own decisions.

How do you vote for Martha Coakley if you're a man? She seems to have a disdain for the male gender. We're pedophiles who drag our innocent womenfolk down a path of evil with us. Never mind, of course, the fact that none of the accusations in the Amirault case ever happened.

How do you vote for Coakley if you're me? I was a Fells Acres student. I remember Miss Vi. I remember Miss Cheryl. Heck, I was at Cheryl Amirault LeFave's wedding. Gerald used to pick me up at my house in a giant station wagon to take me to school. We loved the Amiraults. My brother and I loved our time at that school. My family has lived through the hell of those trials, being called by the police for questioning, the fear, all of it. My parents were able to figure out it was crap in the 80s. And they aren't qualified to be governor, either.

The daycare abuse hysteria reminds one of the witch hysteria that we know about all too well. Here's the thing. Coakley's role was after the daycare hysteria was over and thoroughly debunked. Every thinking person knew they were innocent. Coakley lied through her teeth while protecting the modern day witch hunters well after the bitter end. The Salem witch trials ended in 1693. Coakley's actions are those of someone who in 1710, years after the legislature passed a law making the witch trial results unlawful, stood up and screamed "Burn them, their witches!" How are we not all laughing at her candidacy? The level of naked political viperism Coakley has displayed in this case is chilling to my soul. Salem, let's show we're better than that today.

The worst thing about this is that she'd still tell you she's right today. Anyone who would act in such a way is utterly unfit to be our governor.

This case ought to leave no one feeling confident except for one thing: justice was not done.

— Judge Isaac Borenstein, 12 June 1998

Congress:

This has been an ugly campaign by both major candidates. I don't really want to vote for either. For Tisei, I would very much enjoy our district sending the first openly gay when elected Republican rep to Congress. He'd also have to be a moderate if he had any hope of keeping the seat, and if you don't want the Republicans to be a nutjob party, you have to elect non-nutjob Republicans. Additionally, we're going to have a freshman Congressman. It's probably slightly better to have a freshman in the majority. If it were Tierney in the general, Tisei would get my vote in a second, just as he did two years ago.

But I think I'm voting for Moulton. He's run ugly ass primary and general election campaigns reminiscent of Tierney's run two years ago. I dislike it a lot. At the same time, I'm very concerned that there's a decent chance (Nate Silver put it at about 75% this weekend) that the Republicans will take over the senate. Because of that, I don't think I want to add another Republican to the house, even a moderate one. I'm basically making this vote based on the national level. The other thing that I really like about Moulton is that he really annoys super dems. The kind who during the primary talked insane amounts of trash about the guy daring to challenge Tierney. The kind who within a day after the primary were such partisan Kool-Aid drinkers that they were asking "What kind of Kool-Aid? I love that kind!" before they had an answer to what kind it was. Moulton bugs them. I like that. Moulton claims he'll be a bipartisan problem solver. We'll see. I think Tisei would have to try to be.

If this wasn't a tight race I'd vote for Stockwell. I like what he's selling. Basically, if you think the problem is partisan politics stop electing the partisans.

I may get in the booth and totally change this one tomorrow.

State Rep:

Paul Tucker is basically running unopposed (his opponent hasn't campaigned or filed required campaign finance paperwork). Good for him, after the recent PD issues and the way he was thrown under the bus by city hall in the aftermath, in what I'd guess was a power play making sure he knew who was in charge around here. I'll vote for him, and I think he'll do a fine job.


State Senate:

Joan Lovely unopposed. She's been fine so far. Her votes I've disagreed with the most have seemed to be going along to get along.

Question one:

Yes. Repeal the gas tax indexing. Why? The legislature has the ability to vote on the gas tax annually if they want. Their unwillingness to do so shouldn't be rewarded. In fact, they just did, and I have no problem with that. It's currently 24 cents a gallon (not the dime Martha thought it was) which is fairly middle of the pack. If it needs to go up again, I get it. Roads and bridges are important. We have to pay for them, and a lot of ours are old.

The automatic indexing basically amounts to chickenshit government, and I don't like it. I've heard the argument that plenty of our other taxes are already indexed, but they aren't really. The income tax has been mentioned. The only thing that's indexed to is my income. If I make more, I pay more. If I don't, I don't. Same with the sales tax. If I spend more, I pay more. If I don't, I don't. And by the way, that "already indexed" tax was increased recently anyway ... Most importantly, we are in a prolonged period of wage stagnation for low and middle income workers. It's fantasy to say that the indexing is designed to not make it feel any different down the road when so many people aren't seeing income growth.

One final point, remember that many of the legislators who instituted this indexing barely pay the gas tax at all, as they collect per diems for reporting to the state house. If this bill had ended that practice for legislators inside 495 I'd be a little less opposed.

Question two:

I'll support this, barely. And really only because so many Salemites or visitors are slobs. My next door neighbor's house goes through from one street to the other, and his back yard is next to me. It has a fence, so they can't see the sidewalk behind it. I picked up 14 pieces of plastic, none of which required a deposit, from that sidewalk the other day. There were no deposit containers. That's about it for me.

The truth is, this is a crappy way to do recycling, that is way more expensive to people and businesses than increasing curbside, etc. The vast amount of uncollected deposit money, which will provide more windfall (cash grab) to the state, is all the proof you need of that. If I lived somewhere cleaner I'd vote no.

Question three and four:

Question three undoes the casino law, and puts the prohibition back in, basically.

I'm conflicted, but think I'll vote yes on it. I'm not a casino fan. I think they tend to prey on those who can least afford it. It also appears to be at least a faltering industry, and I don't think the law would pass the legislature today, even with the state managing to finagle 25% of the take. I don't think this is a sound economic development policy. There are better ways to get jobs.

Question four mandates that many employees be able to earn paid sick leave, and others would be allowed to use unpaid sick leave. It's a noble idea. I wonder some about the practice, and how it will impact some service industries, (like restaurants) especially. I will probably vote yes on question 4, unless Diane Wolf tells me it would close the Lobster Shanty.


There's plenty of other stuff on the ballot, but this was the interesting stuff.

The Future of Bentley Elementary School

The School Committee meets tonight with the intention of voting on MOU A between the Salem School Committee, Empower Schools, and Blueprint Schools Network, which will lead to Salem applying to the state DESE for a Horace Mann III charter. This would allow the district to switch from the Transformation Model that the district chose when Bentley became level 4, and move to the Restart Model. The Transformation Model could also be called the "model of least resistance." I won't say I told you so, but one blogger questioned whether the transformation model was really the right choice when it was made. (Check the archives.) Subsequent data on emerging practices has shown that schools that choose the transformation model see less improvement than school that pick one of the more painful models. We've certainly seen less than impressive results locally.

So what the heck does that all mean? Let's dig in.

The players:

Salem School Committee: OK, this one is a given. If you don't know the School Committee I probably can't help you.

Blueprint Schools Network: Blueprint is the proposed operator for grades 3-5 at Bentley while the charter application process takes place. After one year the "operator" for all grades would be the newly formed Horace Mann Charter School Board of Directors. Blueprint would be responsible for hiring the principal and all faculty/staff for the "new Bentley." They would also be responsible for decisions around what the new Bentley looks like. Much is left to their discretion. When does the school year start? End? How long are the days? All basically up to Blueprint.

If you listened to the school committee meeting last week you heard Dr. Walsh talk about the fact that the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) includes a lot of "shalls" for the Salem Public Schools, and a lot of "mays" for Blueprint. He's not wrong. However, the "mays" that exist for Blueprint basically define the options they have to reach a "shall." Here's an example.

7. School Calendar. The School Operator may collaborate with SPS and may replicate SPS models with such modifications as the School Operator deems appropriate for the School, or the School Operator may develop and implement new initiatives, with respect to the daily, weekly and annual schedules of students and personnel, including, without limitation, the schedule for classes, tutoring, professional development, recess and planning, the number of these scheduled, and the start and end times of each, and when attendance is required by students and/or personnel. In all events, the School Operator will consider the SPS calendar before developing the School calendar.

Re-written, you could just say "Blueprint shall develop a school calendar." A huge part of the attraction to a restart is the large amount of flexibility that it affords. As such, the MOU contains language guaranteeing the operator a lot of leeway. There's really no point if it doesn't.

The primary Blueprint person that we've seen here in Salem is Matthew Spengler, who is the founder and executive director of Blueprint Schools Network. Read his bio here. I've been impressed with what I've seen from him, and his resume is nothing to sneeze at, either.

The MOU only guarantees Blueprint the right to operate the new school in year one. Make no mistake, though. It is Blueprint's intention to be involved long-term. Blueprint is currently working with 10 Denver schools on turnarounds, and tutoring in an additional 39 schools. In Massachusetts they are working with two Boston schools right now, and will be the state appointed receiver for another elementary in Dorchester next year.

Principal Gaga: Justin Vernon is the proposed principal of the "new" Bentley. Next year, Bentley will have a grades 3-5 principal employed by Blueprint, and a K-2 principal (or two, like currently). The following year Vernon would presumably be principal of the entire school. So why do I call him Principal Gaga? This. I'll admit I think that is absolutely fantastic. Give me school leaders willing to do this sort of thing.

Justin Vernon was active in the original meeting held at the Bentley School discussing this potential path forward. However, he hasn't really been seen since. He's not without controversy. He previously interviewed for two Salem principal jobs unsuccessfully. I hear at least one interview went really terribly. It's unclear if he's still the choice to run Bentley, but he did give his notice at the innovation school where he's currently principal. Fun note: he lives on the same street as Mr. Fleming, who will likely find a convoluted reason (I'd guess some contract language someplace) to vote no Monday night. He really should be Jim Hedging.

Empower Schools: Empower is sort of the great unknown in this equation. They're a party to the MOU, but their role is kind of unclear. If I had to label them something, I guess it would be either "matchmaker," or "middleman." I got the feeling that it was Empower, rather than Blueprint, who identified Vernon as the correct person to lead Bentley as principal. I think Empower also identified Blueprint as a good partner for Salem.

Here's the thing. I'm not sure how Empower gets any revenue. We aren't paying them anything. Is Blueprint? Maybe they don't need money. The co-founder of Empower Schools is Chris Gabrieli. He's the same Chris Gabrieli who finished second to Deval Patrick in the gubernatorial primary in 2006. He had an extremely successful career in venture capital, before turning his attention to education. He's also the founder and chairman of the National Center on Time & Learning, which we've sought expanded learning time grants from. Additionally, he's a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. In short, he knows his stuff. Maybe Empower doesn't need revenue. Feel free to start some rumors about Gabrieli being Kim Driscoll's next big political benefactor. May even be true.

Gabrieli largely led the original meeting about restart held at the Bentley school, and was the person who introduced Vernon. Blueprint may have been referenced at that meeting, but they weren't running the show.

So those are the players, but what's the game?

The game:

As I mentioned, we'd be agreeing to allow Blueprint to run grades 3-5 at Bentley next year, while applying for a Horace Mann III charter for the entire school. So what's a Horace Mann III? There are 3 types of Horace Mann charters. Types I and III are nearly identical except for one thing. A Horace Mann I requires that there be an agreement in place between the district and the teachers' union. In a Horace Mann III prior agreement is not necessary.

From the state's description of a Horace Mann III:

An agreement with the local collective bargaining unit is not required prior to Board approval, however, the charter school’s board of trustees must negotiate with the collective bargaining unit and the school committee in good faith regarding any modifications to collective bargaining agreements following the award of a charter. ... it is our understanding that the charter may be fully implemented if an agreement on such an MOU is not reached at least 30 days before the school’s scheduled opening.

Basically, the union has a weakened position in a HM III. We apply for the charter without their approval, and if agreement can't be reached, we can implement anyway. Not being hamstrung by collective bargaining agreements is a common theme throughout the MOU. For example:

SPS acknowledges that the School Operator’s ability to take the actions required and permitted to be taken pursuant to this MOU during Phase I, including but not limited to actions with respect to personnel, recruitment and hiring, working conditions, school organizational structure, job descriptions, policies, training and professional development, teacher evaluation, non-renewal, and termination would be limited to the extent that local collective bargaining agreements and the past practices of SPS and the School continued to apply to the School and the School Operator. Accordingly, the parties acknowledge and agree that if the School Operator decides in its sole discretion during Phase I that it is not sufficiently exempt from the local collective bargaining agreements and past practices at SPS and the School, the School Operator may terminate this MOU.

So if we don't make it so that our current collective bargaining agreements don't apply to the new school the operator can terminate the agreement. Joyce Harrington won't be happy about that. There are clearly some timing concerns that lean towards a Horace Mann III rather than a HM I, which requires pre-agreement, but I'm fairly certain that the ability to have that 30 day window as leverage is a big part of it as well.

Exhibit C at the end of the MOU calls this out even more.

Teachers Union

EXHIBIT C
PHASE I PLAN

It is intended that the Bentley Elementary School shall be exempt from local collective bargaining agreements and the past practices of Salem Public Schools with respect to personnel, recruitment and hiring, working conditions, school organizational structure, job descriptions, policies, training and professional development, teacher evaluation, non-renewal and termination. As expressly set forth below, the Bentley Elementary School shall be exempt from the following provisions of the Agreement Between the Salem School Committee and the Salem Teachers Union Local 1258 – Teachers Agreement (2011-2014) (“Teachers CBA”), and all past practices pertaining to the relationship between the Salem School Committee (“Committee”) and the Salem Teachers Union Local 1258 (“Teachers Union”) contained in or related to the following sections of the existing Teachers CBA, as well as any corresponding sections of any future collective bargaining agreements with the Teachers Union, and any Side Letters or Letters of Understanding thereto:
Working Conditions

• ;  Article I (“Union Recognition, Jurisdiction and Definitions”)

• ;  Article III (“Salary and Rates of Pay”)

• ;  Article IV (“Supplemental Benefits”)

• ;  Article V (“Leaves of Absence”)

• ;  Article VI (“Working Conditions”), including but not limited to the length of the school day and the school year, and any professional development requirements

• ;  Article VII (“Transfers; Promotion”)

• ;  Article VIII (“Grievance Procedure”)
  Union Negotiations

• ;  Article IX (“Union Privileges and Responsibilities”)

• ;  Article X (“Handling of New Issues”)

• ;  Article XI (“Savings Clause”)

• ;  Article XIII (“Mandated Change in Length of School Year or School Day”)

• ;  Article XV (“Duration”)
  ;
  Side Letter

I imagine that the ones they really care about are articles VI, VII, VIII and XIII.
Why? they don't want to give bumping rights to teachers they don't retain, they want the ability to change the length of the day, the year, and the amount of professional development time, and they want the conversation to be solely about what will be paid for those things, not whether or not they happen.

Want to be a teacher at the new Bentley? You'll likely have to report for professional development days starting on or about August 6. During the school year, which will start in August, you'll work from 7:20 to 3:20 each day. You'll also complete 100 hours of professional development annually, with more than half occurring before students arrive in mid/late August. You'll also be encouraged to participate in Saturday or vacation academies. Are you a Bentley parent? This should give you a good idea of where things are headed.

Tonight will be a historic night. Joyful? Absolutely not. It's a failure, yet again, that we're here. I've seen enough to believe that this is a necessary step, and I'm more hopeful for the future of Bentley than I have been. I'll be at the meeting tonight, probably posting on Facebook. I don't know if you've heard, but the American Federation of Teachers, Massachusetts Chapter has promised a demonstration before the meeting. Can't wait.

How do you Solve a Problem Like the Bentley?

I think (and this is really just an educated guess) there are big goings on being planned for Bentley Elementary School. Maybe even really big goings on. The conversation that took place regarding Bentley was really weird, and shrouded in behind the scenes stuff that we aren't privy to. The Committee of the Whole meeting that was scheduled for last night was canceled, and two additional meetings were set, Thursday at 6:30 and Monday at 6. I'd like to take credit for the cancellation last night, but I'm betting that Mr. Schultz inability to attend is the real reason. It was mentioned that the meeting Thursday would likely be almost entirely executive session (so feel free to stay home), but no reason was given. That alone is odd. Usually it's executive session "to discuss contract negotiations," or "to discuss a grievance."  The discussion that was on the agenda for last night's regular school committee meeting was basically punted until after the COW meetings.

I pointed out when we were designated a Level 4 district that the turnaround model that we chose (Transition) was the path of least resistance, and created the smallest amount of short term pain. It also required the smallest amount of change. I asked one school committee member when MCAS results came out this year with no real Bentley improvement, even after the large amount of effort (and money) spent when it was time to ask if we picked the right model. The response was something along the lines of "we're getting there."

The other three options were Turnaround, where all staff and administration are let go, the principal is replaced, and no more than half the teachers can be rehired. That would definitely require some executive sessions, followed by some collective bargaining. There is a Restart model, where the school is closed and reopened with a new operator, and massive staffing changes. Again, there'd be plenty to talk about in executive session. The most drastic model is Closure. Literally you padlock the school and reassign all the students. I'm not sure, but I don't think we have the capacity across the district to make that happen.

It's possible that because we already have our School Improvement Grant that we can make changes on the fly without without declaring a new model. The model has to be declared to get federal school improvement and race to the top funds. Even if we don't officially change turnaround models, I'm pretty sure we're about to see big changes proposed, and you'll see a schism between newer and older committee members. The new members will embrace more aggressive action, while the committee members with more seniority will not want to admit that a school that they oversaw for so many years reached a point of being beyond saving. If you watched last night you saw the beginnings of that already, with Walsh and Bryant pumping up Bentley, and pumping the brakes on these meetings. I agreed with Walsh's call for sunshine on these discussions, but executive session exists for a reason, too.

I don't have great personal vision into Bentley, so I'm pretty much stuck with the stats. The stats show little, if any, improvement. We're halfway through the time set by the state to get out of level 4, and that school is currently closer to going to level 5 than it is to level 3. It may well be that the time for bolder action is now. (Personally, I like the sound of the Salem Academy Charter Elementary School at Bentley.)

An agenda for the Thursday meeting should legally be posted today. Expect it to be pretty generic.