Showing posts with label Salem News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salem News. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2012

Cleaning out the closet

Here's a bunch of stuff that's been swirling around my mind for the last month or two.

That's not blood in the water.

It appears that poop pumper Peter's Rockmore floating cesspool may be returning. First came this blog post, which I shared on Facebook. Now, this article confirms the earlier blog post.

Noyes doesn't sound reformed. He's now downplaying the earlier incident, which cost him a cool 300k (not including the lawyers). His statement, from the article:

"The restaurant was never charged with anything," said owner Peter Noyes, further explaining that the charges were brought solely against the Hannah Glover.

Looking back at the original press release from the US Attorney, it included the following:  "During some summers, the company allowed the sewage holding tank aboard the Rockmore intermittently to overflow, such that raw, untreated sewage spilled into Salem Harbor." Officials from both Salem and Marblehead  appeared to back this claim up. So while his statement above may be technically accurate, it's at least somewhat deceptive, and ignores the DA's claim. He was accused of allowing the Rockmore to leak poop into the harbor, but those charges weren't brought because he agreed to the plea deal. Convenient.

A lack of transparency, and care for the environment, isn't new for Noyes, as you can read here.

______________

Things we can learn from Lawrence ... yes, Lawrence.

As part of the Lawrence school turnaround plan, six Lawrence school principals have been informed that they will not be asked back for next school year. Additionally, a large number of tenured teachers are being forced out. The state is running Lawrence's turnaround, and having that outside voice is probably helpful. The state doesn't care about stepping on toes, and isn't mired in the local politics of payback. They are aggressively weeding out those that don't contribute enough. This includes telling the local teacher's union what's going to happen. It was my understanding that one of the "benefits" of having a level four school, was greater autonomy for the district to make unilateral decisions that normally need to be collectively bargained. We don't seem to have the stomach for that here, if today's Salem News article is to be believed.

I hate rewarding failure. It just seems unfair. That's not to say that I think teachers deserve all of the blame. There's plenty of that to go around, and I'm sure many parents need to accept a share. I know administrators and the school committee need to accept their slice. (Don't hold your breath.) But we're talking about this because our schools have failed. We paid our teachers to do the job. They haven't, whatever obstacles they face. Now they want to be rewarded for failing grades? Have you no shame, Joyce Harrington? Have you no balls (figuratively, of course), Kim Driscoll?

Another thing that the state is doing really well in Lawrence is involving the leadership of successful charter schools. Here in Salem, some in local leadership choose to demonize them, rather than learn from them. The Lawrence plan goes the other way, actually asking the leaderships of several successful charter schools to take over running several of the Lawrence public schools. Over Brendan Walsh's dead body will we see our own very successful charter school taking over a Salem school. Click that link and see how much more successful Salem Academy Charter School has been with similar students.

I laughed at Willy Scamtigua when he asked the state to takeover the Lawrence schools. What a failure to lead! Maybe it's not such a bad idea. We don't seem willing to discuss whether or not principals need to be removed. At least not out loud. Several people have whispered to me that the middle school's failings start at the head. Nobody wants to say it out loud, but the words "dinosaur" and "backward-thinking" have been used in private. I've asked around, and can't find any parents looking to sing the praises of our middle school principal. But again, we don't seem to have the stomach to address the real lack of leadership that appears (according to the DESE) to be pervasive around here. I haven't had any personal experience with Ms. Manning. I see her actively involved and attending and participating in school committee meetings, but can a really diverse population with seemingly one opinion be wrong? I'll add that I did witness an exchange between Manning and several of her teachers after one school committee meeting, and it appeared that there was real affection there, both ways. That may not help kids learn.

______________

Terrible timing, Dr. Walsh

Speaking of Dr. Walsh, he must have the worst timing on Earth. Two weeks ago, he wrote a letter to the editor chastising Salem CyberSpace director Linda Saris for not giving the school committee credit for everything going on in the Salem schools. The following day came word that the Attorney General reached a settlement with the city regarding malfeasance in the schools around bidding and purchasing.

Somehow, I'm guessing that if the state had taken over our schools, like Lawrence, that Paul L'Hereux would be looking for a new job today. Wasting tens or hundreds of thousands of our dollars must just be all in a days work here.

Saris, by the way, is actively getting her hands dirty truly helping the toughest cases in our district. Dr. Walsh might want to try that. (Yeah, I know, he did his time. Save the belly-aching.)

Strangely, Dr. Walsh, who as a school committee member, claims responsibility for all that goes on in the Salem schools, has not stepped forward to accept responsibility for allowing these misdeeds. The article about this includes a great picture or Walsh, smiling with the whistleblower, who detailed the allegations in his resignation, which Walsh moved to accept when it came before the school committee. Oops.

The Snooze article back when Mr. Sheehan resigned failed to delve into the contents of the resignation letter, and included quotes from Cameron about Mr. Sheehan leaving due to timing on his pension, and Walsh lauding him for being a pleasure to be around. He was similarly congratulatory of Cameron when he left. Is he really this clueless?
______________


Election Shenanigans


State senate election season is in full swing, and with it comes plenty of insanity. Read any Patch articles recently? If so, you've probably read plenty of comments from commenters who all seem to have a very similar message. The phrases "evil Kim Driscoll," "phoney baloney Joanie Lovely" and yelling and screaming about "the gay agenda" appear over and over, as if they were written by one person... The names used don't have any other local web presence at all, not even white pages listings. They claim to support Ed Carroll (who supports gay marriage) for state senate, at least on Salem Patch. I recall one of them, while writing on Peabody Patch, proclaiming support for a different candidate. The person behind the people claims to have plenty of inside election knowledge, and even wrote the following:


Janet Marino-Johnson
2:15 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2012
LOVELY CAMPAIGN IN BIG TROUBLE! She is going to be hit next week with multiple Ethics & Campaign violation for ILLEGALY mailing absentee ballots to people this week and demanding they vote for her because " I expect a low turnout and really need your help!" That is not how absentee ballots are to be distributed-- a clear violation of state and federal law! Plus just read on Peabody Patch a group of Lovely volunteers are jumping ship and supporting Edward Carroll because of way too much interferance from the arrogant Kim Driscoll her aide Jason Silva--accusing them of Nazi like tactics on her own volunteers! Vote Edward Carroll State Senate like me!

Patch removed it, probably due to its patent insanity/libel, but you can see the cached version here.

Someone with one of these campaigns has way too much time on their hands. Somebody should let them know that we don't go to the Interwebs to have our minds changed. We go there to spout when they're already made up. The fellowship of the miserable is a terrible predictor of elections. Look at Tom Furey for proof.

The central question for Joan Lovely in this election is, "How do I get people in Salem to go vote in the primary?" I've asked around, and haven't really heard a compelling answer yet. If she can't come up with one, it will be a sad day for team Lovely on September 6. The tactic alleged above may be her best shot. And yes, the primary this year is on September 6, a Thursday, during a holiday (and for some, back to school) week. That should help turnout.
______________

Tom Watkins leaving, Paul Prevey repeat?

City Purchasing Agent Tom Watkins is leaving for a job in Andover. I'll be interested to see if Paul Prevey pulls another sit in on the next appointment. Watkins stayed "acting" for quite a while because Prevey refused to allow a confirmation vote, in an apparent power struggle with the mayor. He demanded copies of the resumes of all who applied, and refused to go to the city HR office to review them. It was an odd move from the normally pretty level-headed councilor, who never really explained his position to satisfaction. I'll be interested to see if there is a repeat with the next purchasing appointment. If not, it will make me wonder about the first instance even more.

Andover must think Watkins is qualified. They've made him their Director of Purchasing. Of course, that news came out the day before news of the Salem schools purchasing/bidding fiasco. Related? Good question. I'll admit I know very little about how much carryover there is in purchasing between the city and the schools. They sound unrelated, but the timing was curious, and Sheehan specifically mentioned the fact that there was a new city purchasing agent (Watkins) in place when he came to town, and that the purchasing agent had to sign off on all requisitions as well. Maybe Watkins got out while he could.

______________

SESD oversight

Sleep well at night, everyone. City engineer Dave Knowlton is Salem's lone representative/oversight on the the South Essex Sewerage District. We only send them almost 7 million dollars of tax money a year. For a little more info on that board, check this out, the only blog post that I've been threatened with litigation over (yet). I think Dave Knowlton spends most of his life dealing with complaints about all manners of city life and construction around. I'm sure he's not finding too much time to dig into the spending at SESD.

______________

Blaney Pier

It's interesting to see that construction has finally started on the Blaney Pier extension. I say finally, because it was originally slated to start back in early November, and be completed by now. I'm still not sure that it was wise to go forward with this phase while the neighboring power plant site is up in the air. They have a ready made dock for the type of large ship we're looking to attract.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

A new direction?

Today's Salem News article on whether or not the mayor can or should have the right to address council, talks about whether or not the charter guarantees the mayor the right to speak. Of this, they say, " In recent weeks, the debate has taken a new direction."

KIKS readers will know that this is not a new issue, as I raised it over fourteen months ago, here. Additionally, the mayor asserted as much in council chambers during the budget meeting last year, when Councilor Ronan attempted to block the mayor from speaking, though she was invited to attend and participate in that meeting.

See for yourself. About two minutes into this video.






Copying from myself:

Section 19 of the General Provisions, is as follows:
19. Mayor to provide information to council; attendance at meetings of council; addressing the council.
The city council at any time may request from the mayor, or, under Plan D or E, from the city manager, specific information on any municipal matter within its jurisdiction, and may request him to be present to answer written questions relating thereto at a meeting to be held not earlier than one week from the date of the receipt by the mayor, or, under Plan D or E, by the city manager, of said questions. The mayor, or, under Plan D or E, the city manager, shall personally, or through the head of a department or a member of a board, attend such meeting and publicly answer all such questions. The person so attending shall not be obliged to answer questions relating to any other matter. The mayor, or, under Plan D or E, the city manager, may attend and address the city council in person or through the head of a department, or a member of a board, upon any subject. (emphasis added)
This provision of the charter doesn't permit council to prevent the mayor from addressing them. It expressly authorizes the mayor to address council regarding any subject. Therefore, Pinto (and council's rule) may have violated the city charter with his actions. So which takes precedence? The City Charter is basically the City of Salem's version of the constitution. A rule of council in their handbook that violates the Charter wouldn't be permissible, and would therefore be invalid. Don't believe me? Consider this example. The Charter lays out that there will be 11 City Councilors. If City Council decided to vote to increase that number to 13, without amending the Charter, do you think that would fly? Surely it wouldn't. So without amending section 19 of the charter wouldn't Pinto's action also be illegal?

Do I think that the mayor should be allowed to attend city council meetings and filibuster for hours? Of course not. I don't think I buy that the charter allows that, either. The way I read it, the council president does have the responsibility to recognize the mayor, or a department head, or board member sent by the mayor. That doesn't mean that the council president has to allow them to go on indefinitely. The president still holds the gavel. This is going to be made into a much bigger deal than it has to be.

The last thing anyone wants, is a new charter commission. Though, if there is one, sign me up!

The idea that this is a "new direction" for this debate, however, is another example of the snooze being in the dark. It has been discussed in council chambers several times. It was even mentioned on their own pages months ago.


Thursday, March 17, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Mayor's Office Investigating Whether Charter Was Violated

I can confirm exclusively that the Mayor's Office is looking into whether or not Steven Pinto's actions at last Thursday's City Council meeting violated the City Charter.

I emailed a link to this post to the mayor and her top aide, Jason Silva, yesterday, informing them of my belief that the City Charter guaranteed the mayor the right to speak at City Council meetings. I just received a response from Mr. Silva thanking me, and letting me know that they are, in fact, looking into it. You heard it here first.

Still, the Salem News is silent.

Salem News Drops the Ball

The Snooze has two editorials on the 120 Washington St lease agreement (or disagreement) and last week's council meeting today.

First, this either really late, or you're beating a dead horse. (I know, who am I to talk?)

Second, you're still dropping the ball here. Was Usovic correct in stating that the mayor always has the right to address city council, as I covered here? The News published the Usovic quote, yet has never addressed whether or not he was correct. What does section 19 of the charter mean? It's definitely in question. You'll notice that in the comments on my previous post that Mr. Blatty and I disagree. (I still think, I'm right, but I'm sure he still thinks he is, as well.)

I think the Salemweb poster WillowsJim makes an excellent point regarding what Steven Pinto is doing to himself with his stand on this issue. Read it here. (currently second from the top) I've seen numerous examples of people who take little interest in Salem politics who have become aware of this issue and immediately take issue with it, especially the wasting of an extra $42,000 a year on rent for an office that we aren't leaving in the next several years. Taking a stand stating that we should pay more rent doesn't make for a good soundbite, and we very much live in a short-attention soundbite world. Good luck with that. Even if he were right (I don't believe he is), it's easy in politics to win a battle that helps you lose the war.

He could easily have given the mayor 5 minutes, not looked like a dink, and still voted to spend extra on rent, as he did.