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.

An Open Letter to the Salem City Council, and some other people

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-maybe Albert Einstein, maybe Ben Franklin, maybe nobody

It was with increasing disgust that we, the citizens of Salem, watched you, and I do mean ALL of you, carry on your ridiculous charade for 7.5 hours and 300 ballots on Thursday night. It was definitely insanity. What a pitiful display of government at "work." Congratulations. It took you all of three days to prove that you couldn't get by without Joan Lovely. Let's be honest. There is no way on earth that she'd have let that embarrassing debacle take place for 7.5 hours. She's gone for three days, and the city council becomes a biggest balls contest (nobody won). Pathetic.

Let me get a few things out of the way right away. I've been as hard (or harder) on councilor Pinto as anyone. It's fair to say unfairly so. That said, I've had several conversations with him since the election, both about the events that led up to that election, and several issues going on in town since, including the school debacle, and the current appointment issue. I'm convinced that he'd act differently if he were appointed now. Nobody can say that he doesn't care deeply for Salem. But you can say that about all of the people who put their names forward. It's not an easy thing to do. The commitment is large, the rewards small. It's a pretty selfless (a small salary, and some large health insurance benefits aside) act. When councilor Pinto runs in November, I might well vote for him, unlike the last time. I think a meaningful opposition is important. But I do believe that it should be the voters who put councilor Pinto back in office, not 6 councilors. That said, many are portraying this as a battle of good vs. evil. That's ridiculous. We have two distinct factions here, at least nearly equally obstinate in your positions. I guess the difference I see is this. One faction is dead set on not allowing one specific person, of 25k registered voters to take the seat. The other faction is insistent that only 1 specific person, of 25k registered voters, be selected.

A contingent of you complains bitterly that the Salem News has it in for you, that they spin things, and misinform. Congratulations. You couldn't have made their jobs easier. You put it on a platter for them this time.

So grow up. All of you. Yes, all. The ABP (Anybody But Pinto) faction is in just as intractable position as the "Only Pinto" group. Find a solution to this mess, and do it quickly. Here's a little advice. Find someone new. Clearly team Pinto isn't getting a sixth vote, ever. Clearly Corchado isn't either. You have four other candidates. I'd submit that Bill Legault is at least as closely aligned politically (maybe more so) to several of you, including members of Team Pinto, as Mr. Pinto. If none of the six who expressed interest work for you, draft someone new. The Charter simply states that you must appoint a replacement. It doesn't prescribe the process you used. It doesn't prescribe that you stick with it, either. Matt Veno comes to mind. What about some of the mouthy Lofters? Marlene Faust? Shirley Walker? They're both involved in Salem doings. How about Ed Wolfe? Chester Suchecki? You can't claim that any of them are shills for her Lordship. Just find someone who can get six votes.

Let's talk about the fallacy that there is widespread support for councilor Pinto. 5,364 people voted in the last city council election. They each had the ability to select as many as four candidates for at-large councilor. Even with four selections available, Mr. Pinto was only named by 35% of the voters. 65% of voters couldn't put Mr. Pinto in their top 4.  He finished sixth, in a field of nine, as an incumbent. The call for change was clear.

Here are some individual notes:

Councilor Turiel: Demanding a compromise, while being unwilling to offer one yourself, is at least a little disingenuous. What you're really demanding is a surrender. Switching from Barcikowski to Corchado, when Barcikowski didn't enter, isn't a compromise. Neither is switching from Corchado to Legault, who you'd prefer anyway. When your position is (exaggeratedly) all but one of 25k voters would be OK, and the other side is only 1 of 25k voters would be OK, maybe calling for surrender is OK. But let's call it what it is.

Councilor Furey: If only you had a computer, and would read this. Blind support for a sitting mayor, we expect nothing else. Wasn't one of councilor Turiel's campaign promises that he'd get you on email?

Councilor O'Keefe: Every time you have to assume the president's chair, which happened a few times during the Lovely campaign, I'm reminded that it's probably time for you to hang up your gavel soon. Fortunately, Chris Sicuranza seems like a worthy Ward 7 replacement. His speech was the best one given the other night.

Councilor Ryan: With every shouted "Steven AAAAA Pinto" you lost a few at-large votes. My wife, who doesn't know you from Adam, walked through the room, and asked "Who is that petulant child?" Twitter noticed too. Also, "Joan did it after three terms" isn't a good reason to jump into the at-large race. I hope you have a better reason than that, though nobody who has discussed it with you can articulate one. Joan also topped the ticket over and over again. Why? She found common ground. Please try it. Be a leader. Councilor Pinto finished second in your ward. Residents there wanted him retained. I understand you supporting him. I can appreciate the loyalty, even when politically, it may be really dumb. That makes the loyalty you're showing more impressive, I guess. Let me ask, at what cost? For how long? Will we still be doing this in May? When does it move from being loyalty to something worse? The man we saw on Thursday will never be a ticket-topper, even if Joan did it first.

Councilor Siegel: When you start your comments by saying that you can vote for whoever you want, per the Charter, you basically admit that you don't have much of an argument FOR the person you've selected. Don't start with excuses! Additionally, saying that 3 of 11 councilors being newly elected shows that there is no benefit to incumbency demonstrates that you may be math-challenged. You do realize that means that 8 of 11, including 3 of the 4 at-large seats were retained by incumbents, yes? I know you don't think all of the incumbents deserved to be retained (your reported mouthing of "You disappoint me!" at one of them during Thursday's meeting, as reported on Twitter by a witness in the chamber)

Councilor Prevey: Councilor Pinto was far from being re-elected in your ward. Teasie almost beat him there. With 4 votes at their disposal, only 31% of ward 6 voters gave councilor Pinto one of their votes. They aren't clamoring for him. Additionally, I was present for the HDSNA meeting where you debated Mickey Northcutt on the CPA. One of the reasons you gave during the meeting for not supporting putting the CPA on the ballot was that voters rejected the CPA 5 years earlier. Your support of councilor Pinto, who voters rejected about a year ago, seems pretty hypocritical.

Councilor Sosnowski: 678 people in your ward voted in the last election. Of those 678, 27% of them gave councilor Pinto one of their four votes. 187 Ward 2 residents asked for councilor Pinto as one of their councilors. He finished seventh of nine in your ward. In comparison, Darek Barcikowski, who you told you wouldn't support, finished second of the nine candidates in the election. How can you claim to be representing your constituents? Additionally, please stop treating the voters like we're stupid. Your caterwauling about how Steve Pinto was the victim of a vast misinformation campaign is simply insulting. Does the snooze really dislike Pinto? Absolutely. Here's the thing. We know that. We judged Steve on several things he did himself. I know you are ALWAYS the smartest guy in the room, but we aren't as dumb as you give us credit for. Steve was judged harshly for his decision on the City Hall Annex lease, which has cost us much more than it would have otherwise. As predicted here, we're still waiting for you to have just one meeting on the concept of an alternative, which you (collectively) promised to do, when you didn't approve the lease. Meanwhile, I expect that we've already received a new RFP response from RCG for the annex. (I'll note, the RFP was written in such a way to be tailor made for the RCG-owned annex to be the successful spot. Go read it. There's some inside politics to complain about.) Have you given up on running for mayor? This isn't helping your cause.

SATV: C'mon man! You drop the meeting and go back to your slide show at 1:30? Do better! There seems to be a pattern here. I get it. No money, and limited staff. Demand that the city support you.

Darek Barcikowski: C'mon man! Corchado may have been a compromise candidate, if your name had been in there, but it's not. Disappointed.

Senator Lovely: Thanks a lot. There hasn't been much fun to blog about recently. While that continues, at least this is something. Please go knock some heads together, quickly.

Spring Pond Woods: I'm sorry, we're going to have to cut you down. We need some more paper after last week. Green city? Not anymore.

OK, back to the group.

You're hurting yourselves, the city, and councilor Pinto's chances in November. There has been very little controversy on the city council in a year. A few boring little things here, but nothing fracturing. It's interesting that when city council fractures again, councilor Pinto's name is involved. What is it about him that is so divisive? I think voters will notice. What inspires the blind loyalty allowing some of you (on both sides) to engage in the politics of personal destruction? I suggested to councilor Pinto fairly early (50 votes in, or so) in the process on Thursday that he could score a lot of points with voters if he announced that it was clear that he wasn't going to get a sixth vote, and as such, he'd withdraw, and take his case to the voters. He'd immediately have been responsible for consensus building, which is what many voters viewed as lacking. True or not (I believe not), the impression now is that no lesson was learned in November 2011.

For a few years now, there has been constant speculation about when mayor Driscoll will leave for bigger and better things. She's not going anywhere in the next few years. She'll be re-elected in November. She may even be here for the full four years after that. God, I hope so. I definitely saw absolutely no mayoral material in that room on Thursday. No matter who you appoint, she doesn't have the votes for several of the things many of you oppose the most. Appoint her, even, and you still won't see a transfer station or wind turbine proposal before council. The reason they haven't appeared yet is that she knows she's not even close to the votes she needs to pass either one.

In closing, I implore you to start acting like the leaders you claim to be. You can start by actually electing a president on Monday. Finish by ending this debacle immediately on Tuesday.

Predictable Schools "Solution"

I've been suffering from Salem fatigue. Nothing going on in town has interested me enough to write about it. There have been several things I've commented on and discussed via Twitter here, and Facebook here, but nothing that got me to write a blog post. I've been following the school situation, waiting for the time to be right to weigh in. I think the time is now. Also, I broke my tailbone recently and I'm crankier than usual. So here it is.

Salem Seggliders Director of Ops facing charges in Boston ... and other stuff

Allan (or Allen, depending on the day) Danley, of Boston Gliders/Salem Seggliders is currently facing charges in Boston for repeated violations of a Boston law restricting use of Segways on sidewalks. I think we've had that problem in Salem as well. I've seen it myself on Charter Street.

Danley is holding the scissors with herhonor.

Well, we did have that problem anyway. I'm not sure we do anymore. The Salem Seggliders location at the corner of Derby and Lafayette is about to be converted into a frozen yogurt shop, and everything inside the store is gone. They may or may not be back. Their old website now redirects to the Boston site, with no mention of Salem at all. I won't say I told you so, but ...

__________

The Salem News article that ran last week touting the "on course" nature of Blaney Street construction is at least a little bit of revisionist history. Construction on the next phase was supposed to begin at the beginning of November, as soon as the ferry season ended. The fact that it is just being put out to bid actually means that they are months behind plan.

Check out this from an earlier Salem News article. " In the late fall, after the ferry season ends, contractors will start building the first section of the T-shaped, 350-foot pier. Work on that phase is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2012."

That was written by the same reporter who states that work starting in June, and not ending until 2013 is "on course." Um ... OK. The last time I dared to criticize something written by Tom Dalton I took a bunch of crap from some of you, so I'll just leave it at that.

I asked a city official why nothing was going on at Blaney back in early December. The response was that they had hoped to get things going, but MADOT hadn't yet signed off on the plans, which was required for some of the grants. That's the approval that finally came in, after a long wait.

_________

Happy new year, everyone! Tried to watch the Salem inauguration and state of the city address today on SATV, who stated they were broadcasting it live. Of course, they didn't. Fail. Would have been interesting to hear the mayor's take on the state of the city. I've sensed a lot of fail coming from SATV recently. It seems they only cover public meetings if they are specifically asked by the city. Why can't they get on the same email list I am on to get the agendas ahead of time. It's pretty easy to read that an agenda item is approving the hiring of a new school superintendent, and deciding that is worth covering. What am I getting for the franchise fee I pay to Comcast? Don't do it for me, I'm just too busy to get to a lot of these meetings. Do it for those who are physically incapable of attending.

Not much going on, right?

It's been pretty quiet in town since election day, right? OK, maybe not so much.

The biggest news to rock Salem is the state declaring Bentley Elementary School to be a level 4 school. Level 4 schools are those deemed by the state to have performed poorly on the MCAS in both math and English language arts for a period of 4 years, with no signs of substantial improvement. Basically the state is telling us, something's broken, and you better fix it. They also make resources available, and also loosen several rules to allow reforms in level 4 schools.

The hope is to get the school turned around (not to mention the other several in danger of reaching level 4) before the state imposes level 5 status on the Salem School District, which would effectively mean state takeover. It's currently happening for the first time up in Lawrence. Might we be second? One difference is that Slick Willie Lantigua, in the ultimate failure to lead, actually asked the state to take over his school system. I can't imagine Kim Driscoll doing such a thing. If we reach level 5, the state appoints a receiver, who usurps all of the power held by the school committee and superintendent.

Anyone still miss Dr. Cameron? Still say we should have sued him for breach of contract, to cover the difference in his salary and Dr. Russell's.

A note to those out there jumping up and down screaming that they had no idea our schools were like this. Just stop. You're making yourself look ignorant. The state publishes MCAS data every year. It's your job to go read it. To those saying it was kept secret until after the election, same message. The state published Bentley's results a full 40 days or so before the election. Several school committee candidates, notably Francis Vigeant, brought up the specter of possible level 4 status. Across the board, Bentley's performance levels are twice worse than the state averages. In grade 3 math, 66 percent of students are proficient or better. At Bentley one third of students make the grade. For reading, the state average is 62 percent proficient. At Bentley that number is 30%. This isn't a sudden new trend. It's been going on for years.

So what do we do to fix this? First, when Carr steps down, which he should do soon, we should appoint Francis Vigeant to his seat on the school committee. Why him? He was only sixth on the ballot? Well, look at what the electorate has brought us. A school committee that oversaw the mess we're in now. Vigeant has proven experience in developing curriculum that help students learn better, and test better. Clearly that's a huge part of what we need. Simply put, no other candidate can make that claim.

What else do we need? Well, we probably need to balance our schools a little better. Bentley has the poorest, least English speaking population amongst Salem's elementary schools. That provides them with more challenges, none of which are being addressed with innovation programs like at Carlton, or extended day/year programs like at Saltonstall. I can't even believe I'm suggesting this, but maybe we also need to let some of those non-English speakers start out in some Spanish language classes. I'm a firm believer that not forcing them to learn English drastically limits their economic potential later in life, but I can't imagine trying to learn math in Spanish, or science or any other subject. Why not a transition model where you're teaching English in English, and other subjects in Spanish, at least until the learning foundation is there in these kids? Teaching native language classes is one of the benefits of level 4 schools. Normally it's prohibited, but at level 4 the door is open for that.

If this news had become widespread prior to the election, it may well have had some impact. In the council race, Carr and Barcikowski were separated by less than 100 votes. Might those votes have swung if voters had known that the Bentley School was about to be downgraded to level 4 status? Maybe, especially with Carr telling everyone he needed a new challenge. Was he really successful in his last one? He's clearly the winner that the news hadn't broken. I guess that makes Barcikowski, and Pinto to a lesser extent, the big loser.

Other winners were Nate Bryant and Jim Fleming. There might have been a push for a new slate if the news had come out. Maybe Bryant knew the news was coming when he said the below comment at the end of the school committee candidates forum.





_________________

One thing I left out of my election analysis and discussion of the changing Salem. Joan Lovely, yet again, was the only candidate named on more than half of the ballots. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

There's talk she'll run for Fred Berry's seat. I'd vote for her, I guess, but I hope she doesn't run. She can have a much bigger influence on Salem leading the city council as president, and waiting for Kim to vacate the corner office, than she would as a junior state senator in a body of 40. I'm betting that deep down she knows that, too.


_________________

New ward and precinct maps are out. Salem Patch has a copy here. There is no longer any downtown component to Ward 3, as Ward 2, and to a lesser extent, Ward 5, have taken it over. Let me be the first to encourage Mike Blatty to run for Ward 2 councilor next go around. You'd still represent Chestnut St, Mike, as that has made the move with you. Thrilled, I'm sure. The most odd changes are people who transferred from ward 2 to ward 6. Ward 2 grew quite a bit, but two little pieces of bridge street were tossed across the river to  ward 6. The first is the downtown side of March Street, but only once you cross over the railroad tracks. Basically, once you cross over that funny graffiti art on the bypass road, if you are on the inbound side, you're in ward 6. The other part is the downtown side of Northey Street, through the Jefferson Station apartments. They can probably see the Ward 2 polling station, but they'll all have to treck over to Mack Park to vote now. If they want to meet their councilor, they'll have to cross the water and head to North Salem. Geographically it just makes no sense. They could have grown 2 a little less to the southwest, and kept those two geographically sensical parts. If 6 needs to grow, have it head more towards 4, and have 4 pick up some of what 3 gave to 2. Confused yet? I know, who cares? I'm not sure more downtown residents helps Mike Sosnowski. Then again, he tends to be unopposed.

Justin Mattera, who was originally a candidate for Ward 3 councilor, wouldn't still be in ward 3 if he had won, as Ward 5 now stretches all the way down the needle park side of Lafayette St to Derby. Speaking of, when is the ward 5 councilor going to get needle park cleaned up? Congrats to Josh Turiel on his new acquisition? I know Mattera asked several times about redistricting and was told it wouldn't be a problem. I'd have liked to have seen how that would have worked.


_________________

Jayson Fallis is alleged to be the kind of asshole who rips off some of the neediest. I'm glad he was captured today. Fallis head.

_________________

I'm off to welcome Santa tonight. Let's hope his arrival goes better than it did at this Florida mall appearance.

OMG, Who the Hell Cares?

Tom Furey seems to be on a mission to fix a perceived wrong in the doings of the Salem High School Hall of Fame, regarding prior coach Ken Perrone.

The whole thing brings this question to mind:




Then I realized, I know exactly who cares about things like high school sports hall of fames.

This guy:




Seriously, don't we have more important things to worry about than some silly hall of fame thing? Apparently not. Furey has written more than one letter about it. It's been discussed on Salemweb. Now, the school committee policy subcommittee on policy (is that a real thing, policy subcommittee on policy, or just another Stewie error?) is meeting to discuss the HOF tonight. I'm sure Furey is right. I'm sure Perrone belongs in. I'm sure nobody besides Furey and Perrone should care.

I see things like this, and I think back to what Matt Richard said about why he is running for City Council. He made the point that there seems to be a lack of common sense regarding which issues get addressed, and which get put off. We operate like a small town, and not a city. It's hard to look at our elected officials dedicating time to what seems like an unimportant (small town) issue (unless you're Al Bundy), and not say, yup, Matt Richard is right.

______________

Salem started a bike sharing program today. I saw Juli Lederhaus heading out to check out the bikes at around 8:45 this morning. Any one want to bet on when the first bike sharing accident takes place? It may be too late already.

Juli Lederhaus checks out the bikes

______________

This is yard waste week. I know this because I looked it up on the city website a few weeks ago. As someone with Monday trash pickup, I'd like to thank the city for sending me an email at 3PM on Monday afternoon to remind me. Very helpful.

Also, nice of the city to inform us before spraying for mosquitos. Would have been nice to know when to close those windows...

______________

Admin note: KIKS is now on Facebook. Links to blog posts, pics, and thoughts that don't make a whole blog post will be posted there. Click here to see the Facebook page. Don't forget to "like" it!

School Committee doesn't understand insurance

I'm a little late with this one, as it occurred on July 18th, but the following video from the Salem School Committee meeting of that night makes me giggle. I would link to the agenda for the meeting, but for some reason it was never posted. In fact, the section of the city website for school committee info is woeful. Most recent meeting minutes posted are from April. Let the sun shine!

Anyway, watch this video, and we'll discuss what we learn.



You can watch the entire meeting here.

First, apparently a final location has been selected for Salem Community Charter School. Must have missed that. Interesting that the school will start the year in a store front before moving into office space. Not really an ideal thing to do in the middle of a school year.

Second, and funnier, or maybe sadder, apparently nobody on the school committee understands the difference between property insurance and casualty insurance. Considering the amount of money we give them to spend, this lack of understanding of basic risk management doesn't make me very comfortable.

Fleming asks why we would insure property we don't own. We aren't. The mayor says you would insure contents, not the physical structure. We aren't. Liability coverage doesn't cover either one. We are insuring ourselves against any liability claim that would arise from our negligence at that location. I've heard it said several times that we don't take good care of our public buildings. Let's say, for example, that whoever is responsible for cleaning the school goes to mop the floor, floods it with water, and walks away to do something. They don't put up any warning signs, and in the five minutes that they're doing something else, someone walks into the school, slips on the wet floor, and breaks their neck.

In this situation, the city is negligent, not the landlord, and would be on the hook for damages, probably into the millions in a case of paralysis. If it happened outside the school area, the landlord would be negligent, and should be covered as well.

A clause in a commercial lease requiring the tenant to maintain liability coverage on the premises is extremely common. I doubt there is a single property in Salem that the city rents that doesn't include such a clause. Ask some downtown store owners if they're required to carry liability coverage. You'll have a hard time finding many who aren't. You can read an example of such a clause here, under 8C.

The city can likely add this property as a covered location on it's existing liability policy, at little or no cost at all. That said, the city should also look into purchasing tenants insurance, which would cover theft or damage of any equipment at the location, as well as any improvements that the city makes to the location, in the event of a fire.

I'm not thrilled that they don't seem to be aware of any of this. I've wondered about our risk management strategy since the dock at the Blaney Street Pier was damaged a year and a half or so back, and the mayor didn't think that insurance covered damage from mother nature. The reason you practically can't get property insurance in Florida, and carriers are fleeing the state is the amount of money they've spent on paying hurricane claims. Mother nature's fury is the number one reason to buy insurance.

_______________________________

One other note, from the twitter stream of city council at-large candidate Darek Barcikowski:

"This just in - all 10 candidates for at large who pulled papers have filed them and we will have a primary on 9/20 to narrow down to 8."

If you really want to get rid of an incumbent or two, your best hope is that they take it easy for the primary. Turnout will be absolutely anemic for it. If the anti-incumbent folks really mobilize, this is your chance to knock them off of the final ballot.

I'll be interested to see if enough of the school committee people turned in their papers to force a primary there as well. Based on the above video, I'm ready for some new blood there. Especially some that lives in Salem year round and can attend more than 66% of the meetings.

City Elections: Shame on us

The current slate of candidates for the upcoming city election really makes me sad. Two races have full fields. At-large councilor has ten candidates for 4 seats, and now there are a bevy of school committee candidates for three seats. That said, most ward races are woeful.

These full races assume, of course, that those who pulled nomination papers actually return them. At last report, only one school committee candidate had done so. I thought my ward was going to have a race, but the challenger has dropped out, and councilor "I must not actually check my emails or messages, because I never respond unless you live in the Willows" McCarthy appears to be running unopposed, again, just like 2009. In fact, this will be the second consecutive election where councilors McCarthy, Sosnowski, Ryan, and O'Keefe will be unopposed. Councilor Prevey, who was unopposed last time, faces only "the homeless guy" possibly now of 31 Barr Street, in this election.

Only two wards have anything resembling a real race. First is ward 3, with Justin Mattera and Todd Siegel challenging incumbent Jean Pelletier. Enjoy the free drinks for now, councilor. I guess this means that Mike Blatty is off the hook and doesn't have to run. The second is ward 5, where local business owner Josh Turiel is challenging John Ronan. Josh just announced that former ward councilor Matt Veno has joined his team as campaign co-chair. I believe Veno is still very popular in that neighborhood. If he's smart, Josh will kill Ronan for his hypocrisy regarding budget cut after cut, when he refused to save money on the annex lease.

Councilor at-large has 10 candidates for only 4 seats. All four incumbents are running for re-election. This is bad math for the challengers. The anti-incumbent vote, and there should be plenty, probably gets split way too far to kick out any of the incumbents. If Matthew Fraser was smart, he'd file to run in Ward 2 instead. He'd hammer Sosnowski for complaining about a static metal box on Bridge Street while ignoring the car damaging jumps at Bridge and Winter. He'd also jump on the annex lease. Simply, he's not winning an at-large seat.

I admit that I'm a hypocrite. I'm complaining about nobody running, but I'm not running myself. My wife and employer would both kill me if I did. Here's what I will do. If anyone in Ward 1 will pull papers by tomorrow, I pledge to spend the weekend getting you at least half, if not more, of the required signatures to run. Hit me up if you decide to do this. Matt Richard? I get that your DARQ following is citywide, but why not run for both? Sawicki's doing it ...

Updates!

The recent mess in the point continues to be a hot topic. One resident took great offense to my assertion that the entire neighborhood is to blame for allowing it to continue. She chastised me for writing about something I know nothing about. Of course, she then admitted to being the exception that proves the rule when she said, "So how do we do that? Get more people to care? Cause frankly, nobody except the people who live in 1 or 2 buildings in the point even give a remote shit."

One or two buildings of people caring is the biggest problem the point faces. One or two buildings of people can't be expected to face a crowd of hundreds rioting in the street. At the same time, the police can't be effective without some support from the neighborhood. I feel really bad for those who do care. I considered buying into the same building that most of them live in, and I thank God that I didn't. They are in a no-win situation at this point.

At least a few of them have been trying for years to get some help from the city, and one of them shared their correspondence with me.

This first string is from a Point resident to the mayor, police, head of the Point Neighborhood Association, and Ward 1 Councilor Bob McCarthy, who has a proven track record of not responding to concerns from Point residents. The author asked that I not include his or her name, as one of their neighbors just had their tires slashed for speaking out. (Klassy!)

The Point, and Better News

I generally don't talk about the Point neighborhood much. There are a few reasons for this. First, it's not really part of my regular path of travel. I just don't get there much for anything. Second, it's an easy target. Finally, I think that a lot of the criticism leveled at the Point is racially motivated, and I don't like that.

All of that said, after this past weekend, it's time for me to take the Point residents to task. They behaved terribly this weekend. Yes, all of them. I'll explain why I include all of them in a little bit. First, some background.

This fourth of July weekend Point residents treated their own neighborhood the way the US treated Fallujah back in 2004. On both Sunday and Monday nights, residents (and probably their visitors, too) were rioting in the streets. From the sound of it, they assaulted officers, and vandalized city property as well, breaking the windshield of a police cruiser. With hundreds of rioters, an undermanned Salem Police Department was able to manage four arrests. There probably should have been one hundred.

A Salemweb poster (icybeem) took the following pictures on the 5th. The trashing of the neighborhood speaks for itself.

I said I blame all point residents for this mess. Simply, if you aren't standing there, pointing, helping the police root out the bad seeds, you're enabling the trashing of your home. If people had any pride in their neighborhood they wouldn't allow this stuff to happen, yet every time something bad happens in the point, nobody sees anything. A stabbing? Nobody saw anything. Drugs? Nobody saw anything. A riot in the street where police were assaulted and taxpayer property destroyed? Nobody saw anything.

More importantly, nobody did anything. After the rioting and trashing of Vancouver following the Bruins Stanley Cup victory last month, do you know what happened? Good Vancouverites were out on the streets at 7AM cleaning up the city. See them in action here. Where were the real Pointers? I guess they were on the streets at 3AM, throwing bottles at the police.

No amount of LOLA marketing dollars can overcome residents who just don't give a shit.

Sad, really.

________________

I promised some better news, so here it is. Councilor John Ronan has seemingly been campaigning for re-election for months, often during City Council meetings. Thankfully, he now has a reason to campaign, as ward five resident Josh Turiel has pulled nomination papers to run against Mr. Ronan. He intends to turn in well above the required number of signatures tomorrow.

It should be a good race. I hope Josh does well, as councilor Ronan's obstructionist schtick (I'm sorry, you can't yell and scream about saving money and protecting the taxpayers while willfully blowing more savings than you found in the entire budget process by not signing a lease because you know it will piss the mayor off. Same goes for Pinto, Prevey, and Sosnowski.) is starting to wear thin. We don't need our own "party of no."

I only know Josh through Twitter. I wrote about him once here. He has a campaign website here. You can follow him on Twitter here. He said to me, "I don't want to be Mayor Driscoll's yes-man, but I'm also not going to be the "no-to-everything" man. The Council needs reason." Sounds about right to me, and the mayor already has her yes-man. His name is Furey.

With Charlie Walsh dropping out of the Ward 6 race we really need some more candidates. I believe that only wards 1, 3, and 5 currently have contested races. Is nobody going to challenge Sosnowski? He thinks that a silent silver box is more important than the Bridge and Winter rollercoaster in his ward. Has councilor O'Keefe been promised his seat until death? What about Ryan and Prevey? Come on people! Make them earn it!

A cut City Council should have made

With great fanfare, Salem city councilors waxed poetic about the great accomplishment it was that they hired themselves a budget analyst after ten years of trying. The results are in. Salem city council should now wax poetic about firing their budget analyst. With the school system willingly agreeing to a $30,000 cut in their budget proposal, the city council cut a whopping $41,826 from the city budget, up from $33,000 the prior year. So short of the 30k that the schools said they could give back, city council cut $11,826. Very little of this came from recommendations from the budget analyst, but instead came from Councilor Ronan's fight against raises greater than 2.5%. Several proposed raises above that amount were put off until January, yielding almost all of the savings.

For that meager savings, we paid the new city council budget analyst $20,000. We also gave them a 5% raise next year, and funded the part time position at $21,000. So much for not giving more than 2.5% raises.

What really shows that this isn't a worthwhile position, is what the analyst didn't seem to have a problem with the finance committee cutting. $27,009 from the library, which would have taken them below the amount required for grants and participation in NOBLE. It also would have rescinded several promotions that had already taken place. The budget analyst must have been fine with that. He also must have been fine with elimination of the position of Energy and Sustainability Manager (OK, it sounds like a joke) which brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, and he was OK with a $6,100 cut that is used to compensate someone for doing two jobs, necessitating the hiring of another full time employee at more than 50k plus benefits. Either the budget analyst never learned the implications of these cuts, or he's bad at math. I'm good at math, and can tell you that the work product doesn't warrant another year and another $21,000. City council should cut the position.

Parking update

The foolhardy plan to ignore the parking study, and have meter enforcement end at 6PM is on tonight's city council agenda. Let me remind you that the stated reason for the change from the 8PM recommendation is to allow downtown residents to park at the meters when they come home, without having to feed them. Of course, the major reason for the original recommendation was to increase parking availability for night time visitors, supporting downtown stores and restaurants, and encourage residents to park in the garages. If you want downtown stores to stay open after five (I do), and you want our restaurants to thrive (I do) people need to be able to park.

The traffic study was a long process, including participation from downtown businesses and residents. City council should listen to their recommendation, and not bend to the will of a few condo owners who have permits in city garages, that they should use a little more. Unfortunately, the committee of the whole recommends passage, which means, since it's the committee of the whole, that they have enough votes for passage.

I invite Councilor Lovely to meet me downtown some Friday night, and show me where all of these "always available" parking spots are. I'm betting there in places that only residents would know to look for them, if they exist at all.

Parking and more parking

My wife takes the commuter rail to Boston every day. She came home with this notice yesterday:

Well that's quite a jump!

Apparently the current 1$ fine for not paying when you leave your car in the morning isn't good enough, so the company that runs the parking lot at Salem Station has decided to increase it by 2,100% That's quite a jump! They are probably right. I can't count the number of times I've been in to her car on the weekend and seen as many as three or four of the little "you forgot to pay" envelopes. Rest assured, at $21 a pop that will no longer be happening, mark my words.

What really scares me about this change, beyond her tendency to forget the number of the space she parked in, is what the city will use this to justify. Back in 2008, when the MBTA raised the price of parking from $2 to $4, the city parking board very quickly voted to follow suit, on the grounds that having different rates in the "same" lot would cause confusion. For some reason, the changes were never implemented. (The Downtown Parking Plan may rectify that.)

Do these look like one lot to you?



View Larger Map

Of course there are two distinct lots here. Even from this view you can see that they also are in different conditions. The MBTA lot is in much better shape, all of the spots have clearly painted lines, and the MBTA lot doesn't flood. It's also closer to the train platform. Also making the "confusion" argument look silly is the fact that you pay for parking in this "same" lot in two different places, depending on which of the "same" lot you park in. Call a cash grab a cash grab.

Using the city's logic at  the time, they should have lowered the fee for not paying from the $10 parking ticket that they issue to the $1 fee that the MBTA charges. Funny how that "confusion" logic doesn't carry over right?

I'm just waiting for them to announce that they're raising the ticket to $21, or better yet, following the 2,100% and raising it to $210. Won't that be fun? Wouldn't want to confuse anyone.

_________________

In other parking news, the city council (I'm assuming as the committee of the whole, but can't tell due to inadequate reporting) made some rather important amendments that kinda destroy the good parts of the comprehensive parking plan for the downtown. The reason that you have a committee made of many stakeholders study this and come up with these plans is so that you aren't stuck dealing with councilors caving to loud special interests.

So what has changed?

I wrote, in my previous post on the details of the parking plan: "First one's free. Annually, your first parking ticket will be forgiven. Somehow I bet they strike this one."


Consider it struck.


I also wrote: 

Enforcement hours until 8 PM. OK, so really this is a money grab, but it's a money grab that I like. Let's use the lots at Lafayette and New Derby as an example. It's 5:30 at night, and you're on your way to a friend's house. You want to pop into Pamplemousse to grab a bottle of wine, or you're feeling klassier and want to run into the Beehive for a whoopie cushion. These lots are your closest, best bet for a parking spot for ten minutes. There's only one problem. It's now 5:30. Nearly every spot in these two lots has been gobbled up by a Derby Lofter, and won't be made available again until they leave for work at 7:45 in the morning. Yes, even though they have passes to the garage down the street, they choose to park here because it's free after 5 and it's about 300 feet closer. What should happen here is that one of these lots, maybe the one that exits onto Lafayette only, should be short term, maybe half 30 minute and half hour spaces. Heck, charge a buck an hour for them. People who need to get in and out to patronize a business will pay it to have the space. Alas, we'll get to the actual plan in "the bad" Enforcement till 8 PM will help keep spots open for people patronizing businesses, and push residents to the permit garages, where they make the most sense.

Normally sane councilor Lovely has lost her mind on this one. Downtown residents parking in the metered spots/lots IS the downtown parking "problem." If you're not coming back for your car until the next day it belongs outside of the retail lots, off the streets, and in a garage. Councilor Lovely proposed changing the enforcement until 6 PM. So here is what will happen. Derby Lofter comes home at 5. Pays for the meter till 6, and parks there until 7:45 in the morning. Same problem as before. Downtown shoppers and diners get screwed. The stores have no incentive to stay open later. Joan, you asked "Who are we trying to turn over? Why are we going to 8 p.m.?" It's to avoid downtown residents clogging all of the meters. If they had to come back out at 7 to feed them, they'd just park in the garages in the first place. I thought you were smarter than this. I also must assume that you have never tried to park downtown on a Thursday through Saturday night, or on a Sunday, since they struck that enforcement for the entire day.

As for your ability to always find a parking spot, Councilor Lovely, didn't you park in the private, customer-only lot at Captain Dusty's to come to the HDSNA meeting on Monday? I think that's what I heard you say when you were leaving.

Downtown business owners should really let the city council hear it about these changes. Interestingly, they didn't amend any of the things I listed as bad, or ugly, in my previous post on the parking plan. They stuck to only ruining "the good." You know, unless it wasn't reported.

NEWSFLASH re: snow emergencies to the Derby Lofts crew: When all cars have to be off all streets the garage is going to be full. Why didn't you think of that before you bought your overpriced condo with no on-site parking? Derby Lofters continue to be whiny morons.

Last week's city council meeting (5/26/2011) Did JP admit to an ethics breach during the meeting?

I mentioned in my earlier post today that there were some good moments in the last city council meeting. They were few and far between, but here they are.

Councilor Sosnowski apparently doesn't know what a Google map marker looks like. The subject of the Witches Cup bike race came up, and Councilor Sosnowski wanted to send the matter to committee because where "they say they're putting it on the map" doesn't match with what they wrote. See for yourself in the video  below.

Ferry delayed until June 11, city lacks transparency

Well that last post had the shortest shelf life ever.

Apparently the Ferry commuters will have to wait a few more weeks to enjoy the boat trip to Boston. The Salem Ferry has suspended service, with an estimated start date of June 11. Readers of this blog will know that I've told you the pier wouldn't be ready for weeks, at least. It was an aggressive deadline, and the Monday through Friday work has been vigorous. Several times recently it has continued past 7 or 8 at night. They took weekends off, and with the hours they put in I don't think you can really blame them. I do think you can fault the city for a near complete lack of transparency on this. As someone who, if forced to choose between Team Driscoll, and Team Anti-Driscoll, would readily admit to being Team Driscoll about 95% of the time. (I know this really disappoints some of you.) I totally believe in almost all of her vision for Salem. I've voted for her twice, and I'd do so again tomorrow.

That said ... the handling of the Ferry situation leaves a lot to be desired. Mayor Driscoll ran for mayor on a platform of openness, transparency, communication, and professionalism. It would appear that some pieces of that recipe were missing here. Announcing to the commuters who take it every day, and the concierges from Boston who were just in town to sample it, among other things, that the Ferry won't start tommorrow, and waiting until there were 24 hours left to do so, shows a lack of transparency, and a lack of "open communication with residents." Go back and look at the pictures I posted on May 16. It was crystal clear at that point (as well as a few weeks before, at least) that Blaney Street would not be ready for passengers on May 27. The contractors have been telling neighbors who inquired that they were two weeks behind for at least six weeks.

Will the Ferry be a scavenger hunt?

It's 10 AM on May 26th.

This means that the first Salem Ferry trip of the season is scheduled for 21 hours from now, at the Blaney Street pier. Currently, Blaney Street is completely blocked with sewer pipes and gigantic construction equipment. You can't even turn onto the street.

Why hasn't there been an announcement about where (if?) the Ferry will launch tomorrow? This is a pretty big deal to Ferry commuters. They are a loyal bunch, who look forward to this day starting in November. They are also a closeknit group. Some even do a little wine and cheese party on the boat every Thursday on the return trip.

Maybe the city intends for the start of the Ferry season to be a scavenger hunt? "The boat leaves at 7, can you find it?!" Wouldn't that be fun.

The only thing I can tell you for sure, as I've said for over a month, don't show up at Blaney looking for it.

A bright red line

It appears that the red line to nowhere in particular was repainted within the last few days. I noticed it prominently on Hawthorne Boulevard and North Street this morning. Here's my question. If you're going to have a paint crew out there to do this, why not have them touch up some of the safety painting at the same time? The crosswalk lines at Essex and Hawthorne are almost non-existent at this point. You painted right between them, why not hit them too? Is it that hard to carry two colors with you?

Fresh red, faded white

Is the red line painted by the city, or is it the Salem Chamber of Commerce or Destination Salem (kinda the city) that paints it? This article gives the impression that (most of) the red line/heritage trail is maintained by the city. Aren't the crosswalks way more important than a silly red line to everywhere? I guess we have our answer. The dollar rules.

Stupid, stupid idea

I wrote a while ago about my happiness at the installation of a stop light at Derby/Hawthorne/Congress, because, after all, it's all your fault. I still think a stoplight there is necessary, but may have to withdraw my endorsement of this project because of this:

A terrible idea!

In the last few days, no turn on red signs have been added to these lights in at least three of the four directions. I'm not sure about Derby Street coming from Pickering Wharf, but the three other entrances to this intersection all sport the signs. Simply, they aren't necessary, and will cause large backups. Plenty of traffic comes down Hawthorne Boulevard and turns right onto Derby. It's a simple turn, with good visibility, including of the crosswalk. Forcing them to wait when it's safe to turn will back traffic up to the hotel. The traffic on Derby street coming from the wharf area is frequently minimal, so a right turn on red here poses little risk. Traffic coming from Congress Street also has good visibility, so a right on red there makes sense as well.

If you look at the two other stop lights farther down Derby Street, both are arguably busier intersections, with more lanes of traffic, and as many or more pedestrians. Neither spot sports right on red prohibitions. The Derby @ Washington intersection should be a candidate for such a restriction long before the one we've actually hung them at.

Please note, I'm not one of the people who yells and screams that every new traffic pattern will create chaos. I welcomed the bypass road, I didn't cry that the sky would fall when North Street was reconfigured at Bridge. I'm not one of "those" people. In this one case, I'm warning you now that it's a mistake to not allow right on red in this spot.

Unrelated note: Looks like there is a newly open restaurant visible in the picture above. Anyone know anything about Scratch Kitchen?

Test the damn parks!

In the past year, Salem has tested soil at two of its parks. They've both come up contaminated and been closed. Last June, Furlong Park, along the North River, was found to be contaminated with lead and other chemicals and has been fenced off ever since. Just this past week testing was performed at McGrath Park, and the lower fields there have now been closed as well. The culprits this time, lead again, and cadmium, which can cause chronic kidney disease, even at low exposure levels, and can even be fatal. It sound like Furlong Park may reopen in the next month or so, ending its closure at about a year. The prognosis for McGrath is less clear, as the problem has just been discovered and it will likely be a long time before those fields are reopened.

My question is this. Why aren't we testing most or all of our parks at this point? Doug Bollen said last week that there were no plans to test any of the other parks. This Salem Patch piece confirms, right from the mayor's mouth, that no other parks will be tested. This seems like a foolhardy choice, when two parks on opposite sides of the city have both been found to be contaminated with lead. The city claims that it would be too expensive, but that's a little hard to swallow when sending 300k to this consultant, or 900k to that one doesn't cause the city to bat an eyelash. How much can 30 soil sample tests cost? I thought I'd look. It appears that soil sample testing can be done at UMass Amherst for as little as $9 per sample, or $270 for all of the remaining parks. I'm sure the city could raise that money if it wanted to. Heck, I'm offering to cover a third of it right now! That's right, get a soil sample from each park and I'll pay for 10 of the $9 tests. Who is with me?

At that point, "we can't afford to test" sounds like a really, really lame excuse. Isn't it much more likely that the truth is closer to "we can't afford to know?" I asked the mayor, along with my Twitter buddy @LizPW why we wouldn't test, but she didn't answer. (To be fair, frequently she does.) If it truly is that we don't want to know, that's really shameful, and won't help anyone's conscience if a kid gets sick from our parks. If the $270 is really too much to swallow, take my $90, look at the prior uses of the parks, and test the ten that are most likely to have contamination issues. Clearly some have much higher likelihoods of problems based on those past uses. The teachers unions frequently like to tell us that "it's for the children" when they have their hands out. This time, it really is. Make sure our kids are safe in our parks. Who wouldn't support that?

Superintendent Cameron moving on, out

Dr. Cameron's snazzy ties will be missed

Though he keeps refusing to confirm it, and won't return phone calls seeking comment, it appears that Salem Schools Superintendent Dr. William Cameron is returning to the western part of the state to take a superintendent job out there in a district with less than half the students of Salem's, probably with fewer headaches. It will likely make his family life easier, and may even help him add to his high 3 pension years. He originally came to us from western Mass (Pittsfield), where he was an assistant superintendent.

Dr. Cameron signed a three year contract less than a year ago. In doing so, he increased his salary by roughly 13%, and got himself a 2% annual raise each following year. A few questions come to mind.

1. What happened to a three year contract equaling 3 years of work?

2. Are there any penalties for Dr. Cameron failing to honor the contract? Does he forfeit unused rollover sick or vacation time, or does he get them as a bonus when he goes back west? Any other financial penalties?

3. Could the city have walked away as easily as Dr. Cameron if they decided they wanted to end the relationship less than a year into the contract? Somehow I'm betting not.

3. When the new contract was signed, school committee member Kevin Carr said the following, "It's good to know Dr. Cameron will be here the next three years at least." Does he feel stupid today?

4 According to Salem Patch, committee member James Fleming stated that Dr. Cameron has handled this honorably. Really? He's either failing to honor his contract, or his contract was terribly written to provide Dr. Cameron with plenty of protection, and the city with little to none. The honorable thing to do would be to honor his contract.


I don't doubt that Dr. Cameron has very good reasons for wanting to move back to the western part of the state. I don't begrudge him that at all. It also seems like he's done a decent job here, and will be missed. I do think that the city needs to consider what just happened, as well as what it costs to execute a superintendent search, and what it costs to negotiate, review, and execute an employment contract for a job like this. When negotiating the next contract, they need to remember that their job isn't to protect the financial interests of the candidate, but to do so for the taxpayer. Clearly, if Dr. Cameron is able to walk away this easily so early in this deal, those interests weren't protected enough.