The dominant issue at Tuesday’s City Council meeting involved a joint motion by Councilors Corey Robinson and Rita Mercier requesting the council declare that “racism leads to crisis” and then have the city commit to specific actions in (1) public health; (2) education and training; (3) socioeconomic equity; and (4) generational wealth-building opportunities.
To fully appreciate what happened Tuesday requires some history. Back in the summer of 2020 in the midst of nationwide protests against racism that were precipitated by the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, then-Mayor John Leahy filed the following motion at the July 11, 2020, Lowell City Council meeting:
M. Leahy - Req. City Council Vote To Assert That Racism Is A Public Health Crisis Affecting The Health, Safety And Well-Being Of Residents In The City Of Lowell, And To Affirm Our Commitment To Efforts Aimed At Understanding, Addressing, And Dismantling Racism In All Its Forms; And To Further Request That The City Manager Direct The Law Department To Draft A Resolution Formally Declaring Racism To Be A Public Health Crisis In The City Of Lowell.
Before the meeting that night a large rally in favor of the motion was held on JFK Plaza and many individuals and representatives of area institutions spoke in favor of the proposed resolution but in the end, the City Council defeated the motion by a 5 to 4 vote. Councilors voting against the motion were David Conway, Rodney Elliott, Rita Mercier, Dan Rourke, and William Samaras. Voting for it were Mayor John Leahy and Councilors Sokhary Chau, John Drinkwater, and Vesna Nuon. Conway, Elliott, and Samaras – three of the No votes – are no longer on the council having lost in the 2021 city election which, because of the new hybrid at large/district system, forced those three to run against other incumbent councilors.
Back to the present. On June 10, 2022, the Lowell Sun reported on Robinson’s motion (“Lowell city councilors reintroduce motion on racism, broaden language and impact”). The article states that before filing the motion, Robinson called Mercier to discuss it with her. In the article and in some of his remarks during the council meeting, Robinson indicated that he altered the language of the original motion – that racism is a public health crisis – to his version – that racism leads to crisis – to gain Mercier’s support.
When the “racism leads to crisis” motion was brought to the floor Tuesday night, more than a dozen members of the public spoke in support of it. Almost all publicly thanked Robinson and Mercier for filing the motion, but many were critical of what they saw as the watered-down language of this year’s motion.
Regaining the floor after public participation had ended, Robinson seemed taken aback by the criticism of the language of the motion and pushed back against it, saying “a declaration means nothing; talk is cheap” and asserting that the second part of his motion – to enact tangible measures related to the four areas he cited – would bring meaningful change.
After Councilor Paul Ratha Yem spoke of racism he personally faced while campaigning last year, Councilor Erik Gitschier gained the floor. He said when he campaigned door-to-door last summer, he told voters that he would support a declaration that racism was a public health crisis and he believed that that was what the council should vote on now. At Mayor Chau’s suggestion, Gitschier first requested that Robinson and Mercier change the language of their motion to state that. Mercier quickly said she would not agree to the change. Robinson seemed amenable to the change but because they had both made the motion, he couldn’t change it unilaterally. That prompted Councilor Gitschier to move to amend the original motion to read “racism is a public health crisis.”
Councilor John Drinkwater spoke next. He said he entered the council chamber intending to vote for the motion as filed but after hearing from the public speakers, he concluded that doing that would further divide the community so he would now support the amendment suggested by Councilor Gitschier so Drinkwater seconded the substitute motion.
Councilor Kim Scott said she was glad that Councilor Gitschier had made the amendment, saying “we shouldn’t have to compromise on that language just to get allies.” Scott went on to cite a number of statistics that show the disparity of outcomes for health, education, and other areas for Lowell residents based on their race.
Councilor Vesna Nuon said he believed racism was a public health crisis when he voted for the declaration in 2020 and he continued to believe it today. He recounted personal experiences that inform that belief. He added, “the first step in solving a problem is to admit that it is a problem” and “we must acknowledge the data” shared by Councilor Scott and some of the speakers.
When Councilors Wayne Jenness and Dan Rourke spoke, both said they would support the substitute motion. (Councilor John Leahy was absent from the meeting).
Councilor Robinson expressed willingness to vote for the substitute motion provided it contained the four substantive areas - (1) public health; (2) education and training; (3) socioeconomic equity; and (4) generational wealth-building opportunities – that he had listed in his initial motion. All agreed that the substitute motion would incorporate all of the language of Robinson’s motion with “is a health care crisis” replacing “leads to crisis” as the only change.
Councilor Mercier said that she does not believe that racism is a health care crisis but that might be a function of her not being exposed to the things others were seeing and experiencing. She expressed a willingness to be educated on the topic and closed by saying that “if people are so strong about it, then I’ll support the motion.”
When the roll was called the substitute motion passed unanimously.
******
On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in El Koussa vs. Attorney General which invalidated the referendum question about the status of gig economy workers. Mr. El Koussa was one of twelve Massachusetts voters who challenged the Attorney General’s certification of the proposed referendum.
The portion of the Massachusetts Constitution that covers referendums requires a proposed question to contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The purpose of this requirement is to keep voters, who cannot amend or sever a referendum question, from having to choose between two unrelated issues with a single vote.
In this case, the SJC held that the question raised two separate issues and therefore violated the state Constitution. The petition specified that workers (“app-based drivers”) at companies such as Uber and Lyft (“network companies”) are “independent contractors and not employees or agents” of the companies. According to the Court, this provision deals with the employment relationship between the “app-based driver” and the “network companies.”
The Court went on to state that “in vaguely worded provisions placed in a separate section” there is language that extends the “independent contractor” relationship to third parties who may be injured by a driver. In other words, this additional language seeks to insulate Uber from being sued by someone injured by an Uber driver.
The SJC held that these two provisions are separate policy proposals and the referendum therefor runs afoul of the State Constitution’s prohibition on ballot questions that raise unrelated issues. Consequently, the referendum will not be on this fall’s state election ballot.
******
If you’re reading this early on Sunday, don’t forget the Juneteenth Festival from 11 am to 5 pm today on Market Street. Included in that is a Lowell Walks guided tour that begins at noon at the Lowell National Historical Park visitor center at 246 Market Street.
Thank you, Richard Howe.