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.

Salem Patch heading down the toilet?

I've been very clear that I believe that Salem Patch has provided a very valuable service since they came to down. You can argue that they've provided better local news coverage than either local print paper. They've been on top of City Council happenings, School Committee meetings, and events like the Washington Square Fire. How do they do this? A staff of freelancers under the direction of Local Editor Aubry Bracco. They are up against full time reporters, and often beat them to press with important news. I'd argue that they might be a little more impartial than our friends publishing from Beverly, where the publisher is rumored to be best buds with the mayor of Salem.

But might that all change? This past week, editor Aubry Bracco published this. Salem Patch will be making room for bloggers on the site. That sounds OK, right? Why not add some more voices? The question, though, is whether or not the goal is to "add" voices, or if it's to replace the paid freelancers providing solid news coverage with unpaid bloggers. (No, Aubry hasn't hit me up to write a blog yet. Hint to Aubry, my email address is to the right ----->.) I hope that this isn't the truth, but signs point to this being the new direction. It would be unfortunate, as the news value, which is where Salem Patch has a ton of value as far as I'm concerned, would be lost. Why do I think this is the plan? A few weeks ago I read this article. Arianna Huffington was intending to go against the Huffington Post model and add more PAID full-time reporters, and reduce freelance spend. Sounded great to me. More news! The North Shore would have to warrant at least one, if not more, full time reporter. (I've enjoyed John Zorabedian's work, even if he can't figure out who I am. My wife says I have a twitter crush on him. No, he doesn't know I'm writing this post.)

Unfortunately, I think that this has changed, and from the sound of it the "free content" Huffington Post model may be coming to Patch. Read this article. Then read this one.  The second one sounds more spot on to me. Less freelancers, more free writers. More keeping revenues at corporate. Sounds like a duplication of the HuffPo model, where most content doesn't cost AOL a dime. My favorite sentence was this, "It’s very important that Patch bloggers are not paid — in order to maintain their independence, according to New Lenox Patch editor Michael Sewall." LOL! If the bloggers aren't assigned any stories, and write what they want, how is their independence in question? Nice justification for millionaires asking for free work.

My big problem is that Patch has a ton of value as a news source. I'd hate to see them gut it, but it sounds like where they're heading, especially with slashed freelance budgets. Too bad, Patch. You coulda been great, at least in Salem. Please keep providing strong news content, and I won't even complain that you haven't asked me to write. (BTW, how vanilla will these blogs be?)