The February 8, 2022 Executive Session
At the February 8, 2022, city council meeting, councilors went into executive session to discuss City Manager Eileen Donoghue’s contract which expires this April. While still in the public session that evening, Donoghue stated that she did not seek a new contract but did want her current contract extended for a year. (As I understand it, Donoghue’s contract would automatically roll over for another year unless she or the council formally notified the other party that they wished the contract to end).
After the executive session, it was clear that a majority of the council did not agree to the one year extension for Donoghue. Because this happened in executive session, the public did not know who supported and who opposed the extension.
The state’s Open Meeting Law permits an executive session to discuss an employment matter but as soon as the reason for the executive session ends, the minutes of the session must be made public. Since the future of Donoghue as city manager was resolved at that meeting, the need for confidentiality ended. Consequently, at last Tuesday’s meeting – the first full meeting of the council since the executive session – the council voted to release the minutes. I happened to be at City Hall the next day so I went to the Clerk’s Office and obtained a copy of the minutes of the executive session.
In the executive session, Councilor John Drinkwater moved that the council agree to a one year extension of Donoghue’s contract but his motion lost with 4 councilors voting for it and 7 voting against. Voting in favor of the one year extension were Councilors Drinkwater, Wayne Jenness, John Leahy, and Vesna Nuon. Voting against the extension were Mayor Sokhary Chau and Councilors Erik Gitschier, Rita Mercier, Corey Robinson, Dan Rourke, Kim Scott and Paul Ratha Yem.
Councilor Dan Rourke then moved to “notify City Manager of no desire to enter into proposed successor agreement” (i.e., the one year extension). That passed by a 7 to 4 vote with Mayor Chau and Councilors Gitschier, Mercier, Robinson, Rourke, Scott and Yem voting to end the Donoghue contract and Councilors Drinkwater, Jenness, Leahy and Nuon voting against terminating the contract.
To the extent the minutes capture the sentiments expressed by councilors in the executive session, the dominant reason stated by those who opposed the contract extension was their desire to have continuity in the city manager’s office given the number of big projects now underway in the city.
New City Manager Selection Process
Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the council received a report from the Auditor/Clerk/Personnel Subcommittee (Erik Gitschier, Dan Rourke, Corey Robinson). The report included three motions that the subcommittee had passed unanimously: (1) to post the position on March 2 and accept applications until March 18; (2) to use the existing job description; and (3) to set the salary range.
Several members of the public addressed the council. All asked that the search period be extended to allow for more input from the public on the qualifications and capabilities of the next city manager. Councilors Jenness, Nuon and Yem all spoke in favor of extending the timeline to allow for more public input. Councilor Yem then moved to extend the deadline to apply from March 18 to the end of March.
However, Mayor Chau ruled that the council would first vote to adopt the report and motions of the subcommittee and only if that vote failed would the council entertain Yem’s motion to extend the time for public participation.
The council voted 7 to 4 in favor of the subcommittee’s recommendation. Those voting for the shorter timeline (and against the attempt to provide more time for public input) were Mayor Chau and Councilors Drinkwater, Gitschier, Mercier, Robinson, Rourke and Scott. Voting against the subcommittee’s recommendation (and in favor of extending the time for public input) were Councilors Jenness, Leahy, Nuon and Yem.
Here's a recap of events to this point:
· Tuesday, February 8, 2022 – Donoghue requests a one year extension of her contract as city manager; City Council in executive session rejects that and votes to allow her contract to terminate on April 11, 2022.
· Tuesday, February 15, 2022 – City Council adopts Mayor Chau motion that the “Auditor/Clerk/Personnel Oversight Subcommittee establish a procedure and timeline for search and appointment of new city manager.”
· Monday, February 21, 2022 – President’s Day holiday and start of school vacation week with regular city council meeting cancelled because of that.
· Tuesday, February 22, 2022 – Subcommittee meets to discuss process and make recommendations for hiring a new city manager.
· Tuesday, March 1, 2022 – Council adopts recommendations of subcommittee by a 7 to 4 vote.
When it came to public input into the hiring process for the next city manager, the city council offered just two opportunities: one at the February 22, 2022, subcommittee meeting which was during school vacation week and was immediately after a Monday holiday; the other at the March 1, 2022, council meeting when the final vote was taken.
Both sessions were at City Hall. None were held in the neighborhoods. Both were on Tuesday nights. None were held on a weekend. No outreach was made to residents. No one invited residents to share their thoughts on the process. Neither of the two sessions was specifically for residents to provide input.
I’ll leave it at that.
American Rescue Plan Spending Plan
City Manager Donoghue presented her proposal for using the $76 million in Federal funds coming to the city under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Here are the major line items:
· Public health response to Covid - $6.2 mil
· Replace revenue lost due to Covid - $10 mil
· Drinking water & storm water/sewer improvements - $17.4 mil
· Economic development & “equity focused services” - $37 mil
· Premium pay for essential workers - $3 mil
· Misc. administrative costs - $2.4 mil
The council voted unanimously to refer the entire budget to the Finance Subcommittee (Councilors Kim Scott [chair], Erik Gitschier and Corey Robinson) but not before the council had an interesting and important discussion about how the “equity focused services” portion of the money would be spent.
The three items that got the most attention were:
· Investments in Cawley Stadium facility and grounds - $5 million
· Investments in Shedd Park pavilion and restrooms - $4.3 million
· Investments in (other) parks & playgrounds - $6.3 million
Councilor Robinson raised a question of equity, pointing out that of the $16 million to be spent on parks, more than $9 million would go to just two facilities (Cawley and Shedd Park) which were both in Belvidere. That would leave just $6 million for every other park in the city. He also pointed out that neither of those two Belvidere facilities were located in a Qualified Census Tract which, under ARPA, are supposed to have priority of expenditures. (The Qualified Census Tracts in Lowell include all of downtown, all of the Acre, Back Central, Centralville (not including Christian Hill), and small portions of East Pawtucketville, lower Belvidere, and the lower Highlands).
Robinson then suggested that a more equitable distribution of the money would be to divide the entire $16 million by 8 and then spend $2 million in each of the 8 council districts. Robinson and his colleagues withheld further comment until the subcommittee meeting.
But not everyone withheld comment. Yun-Ju Choi, the executive director of Coalition for a Better Acre had registered to speak on this agenda item. She told the council that ARPA is intended to help the neediest people in the city, that CBA and other nonprofits have been working with the neediest of Lowell throughout the pandemic and have learned what their needs are. She then said that the proposed budget does not address those needs. Choi emphasized that she wasn’t looking for any funding to go through CBA or any other nonprofit, just that the proposed disbursement of the funds be reconsidered. She also questioned the effectiveness of the city’s previous efforts for public input on the expenditure of these funds and urged the council to revisit the entire public input process.
There are at least two “big picture” questions raised by this issue:
1. Is the best use of a big chunk of this onetime infusion of federal cash on parks and recreation, or is there something else that would have a more meaningful impact on the lives of the people this program is most intended to assist?
2. If parks and recreation are an appropriate target for these funds, is it better to spend a large portion of the money on two expensive projects located in a single neighborhood, projects that might not otherwise be affordable, or is it better to allocate the money equally across the city?
This second question gets at a bigger issue related to the new hybrid council system. People who were alive and active in city politics in the 1960s and who remembered life under the system of district councilors that existed before Lowell adopted Plan E said that the flaw with district representation was that each councilor was (understandably) aggressive about obtaining funds for his own district. That was good for the districts, but it came at a cost because the impulse to fight for funding for one’s own district left councilors reluctant to support critical high-cost projects that could broadly benefit the entire city since supporting big, centralized projects would reduce the amount spent in each district.
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that renovating Cawley Stadium and Shedd Park rise to that critical citywide project level – if anything, I believe equal distribution of parks and rec funding across neighborhoods would be more equitable. However, the Cawley/Shedd versus Citywide dispute does illustrate the philosophical dispute that will inevitably arise again and again under our new hybrid system of government.
Electing a Mayor
The response to a Councilor Yem motion for information about changing the way Lowell elects its mayor generated some interesting discussion. Our current system – in place for 78 years - has the newly inaugurated councilors elect one of their own as mayor by a majority vote of the full council. The first mayor elected under this system was Woodbury Howard who won a 5 to 4 victory on the second ballot on January 5, 1944. Most often, Lowell mayoral elections since then have been bitter, divisive affairs that cleave the unity of newly inaugurated councils on their first day in office, so the impulse to adopt a less disruptive process is understandable. But when considering an alternative way of electing a mayor, I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said about democracy: “It’s the worst system except for all the others.”
Like Lowell, the city of Worcester has Plan E with an 11-member hybrid city council although in Worcester, there are six at large councilors and just five district councilors (as opposed to Lowell’s 3/8 split). Also in Worcester, all at-large council candidates automatically have their names added to the separate elected office of mayor that appears on the same ballot (At large council candidates must opt-out of being listed as a candidate for mayor). Whichever candidate for mayor (1) gets the most votes for mayor; and (2) wins an at-large council seat, become mayor.
With only three at large council seats, the system used in Worcester would not be a good fit for Lowell. Our councilors acknowledge that but want to explore other options, especially ones that would allow district councilors to compete in a mayoral election. But allowing everyone who is running for a council seat to run for mayor simultaneously would be problematic. That could leave voters with as many as 22 names to choose from (2 candidates from each of 8 districts plus 6 at large candidates). It would also mean that someone might win with fewer than 1,000 votes which isn’t exactly a mandate.
If councilors are determined to make the office of mayor an elected position, perhaps the solution is to carve out one of the at large council seats and make that a separately elected mayor. That way, a candidate would have to specifically commit to running for mayor. At the same time, that would make the at large council race more competitive since there would be just two seats to fill rather than the current three.
A few weeks ago, I wrote that an elected strong mayor would give Lowell a better system of government. I still feel that way but that won’t happen any time soon. With a major change in how we elect councilors just put in place and with a federal court retaining jurisdiction over the city’s electoral system, another big change wouldn’t be feasible for at least a decade. Until then, it’s probably best to leave the method of electing our mayor the way it is.