‘Who’s Zoomin’ Who?’
SOME TAKEAWAYS from the nine year-to-date Lowell City Council meetings include the observation that the unanimity with which the body conducted business in its first year is changing, and it may be due in part to the ongoing efforts of City Manager Tom Golden to reduce staffing vacancies across all city departments.
This council demonstrated a necessary tendency to “lead from behind” by submitting motions in reaction to chronic staffing deficits in various departments, which at one point was 65 positions, excluding police and fire.
Until recently, Human Resources Director Mary Callery’s hiring procedure for new city employees was a paper-andpersonnel-intensive operation, requiring hard-copy submissions of documentation, with paper copies manually distributed to department heads for review.
As Golden continues filling vacant positions, the question for the council may become, who’s leading whom? Or in the immortal words of Motown’s Aretha Franklin, “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”
Except for the June motion declaring “racism leads to crisis,” that sparked vigorous debate from councilors and the public alike, and led to an more declarative amendment of “racism is a public health crisis,” the legislative body has conducted its council business in a fairly prosaic manner.
Perhaps as Golden finally staffs up departments, the need for the council to micromanage everyday constituent concerns is lessened, leaving councilors to focus with the manager on a strategic vision for Lowell.
Case in point: Traffic Engineer Elizabeth Oltman. Since she came on board last fall, traffic motions by councilors have dropped significantly. Prior to her appointment, more than 50 motions had been filed from January through October regarding traffic, roadways and calming issues in the city.
Another case in point: The hiring of Economic Development
Director Ali Carter, which was good news to businesses still reeling from the financial impact of COVID-19 disruptions. She took over the position just in time as her department is accepting applications from eligible nonprofits, businesses and community-based organizations for grants totaling nearly $4 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding.
The monies are part of the $79.5 million allocation that was approved by the council last October.
Both these women report to Yovani Baez Rose, assistant city manager and director of planning and development, who took over the role from Christine Mccall in October. Mccall’s two-month absence caused barely a hiccup in city operations — a credit to the team Mccall assembled, which Baez-rose continues to effortlessly build and manage despite her heavy responsibilities.
Another area the council doesn’t have to micromanage is trash and recycling, which occupied an outsized portion of the council’s time and attention in 2022. After a long interim appointment held by Mark Byrne, Golden named Paul St. Cyr as the director of the Department of Public Works. Backed by a team that includes Deputy Director Gunther Wellenstein, the number of motions concerning rats, Waste Management’s performance and trash and recycling have dropped.
From Golden’s hiring in April until December, the council submitted more than a dozen motions on the issue of the unhoused in Lowell. In October, Golden announced Maura Fitzpatrick as the director of homeless initiatives.
Since January, the council has submitted four unhoused motions in nine meetings, but the issue seems to have moved off the agenda as Fitzpatrick finds her footing on this important issue.
In contrast, the city Law Department has seen four highlevel people walk out the door in just four months, starting with City Solicitor Christine O’connor in November. She was followed by First Assistant City Solicitor Kerry Jenness, and both Second Assistant City Solicitors Helen Anderson and Mark Jorgensen.
That upheaval registered with the council, which, in line with its past practice, filed several Law Department-related motions. It’s not clear if Callery’s department did exit interviews with any of these employees.
Helene Tomlinson and Corey Williams were named to the city solicitor and first assistant city solicitor positions, respectively, in January. Among its many tasks, the law office signs off on the contracts for the ARPA funding from Carter’s efforts and the construction contracts for Oltman’s projects. Reportedly, the department is also facing several lawsuits, in addition to complaints about unfair hiring practices by the School Department that also involve allegations of retaliation.
Councilor Vesna Nuon’s motion at the Feb. 21 meeting, requested that Golden assess the staffing shortage in the department and create a plan to fill vacancies. Per its pattern, that motion was passed unanimously by the body.
One glaring exception to the council’s pattern of filing motions that address gaps in departmental oversight due to vacancies: The almost yearlong vacancy in the city’s diversity, equity and inclusion officer position. The position, which reports to the city manager, has been vacant since last April, when the city’s first-ever hire left, citing roadblocks to “building an inclusive and equitable workplace.”
Since then, Lowell was hit by a failing report from the Human Rights Campaign’s 2022 Municipal Equality Index, which ranked the city dead last in the commonwealth on a benchmark tool that measures LGBTQ inclusion in laws, policies and services.
The council has not submitted motions on the DEI issue that is consistent with their other oversight in other areas. Did this position fall off their radar? Perhaps the council feels the DEI training for departmental heads rolled out by Golden in August is sufficient effort. The DEI position serves as a cornerstone of best practices in towns and cities across the commonwealth — all scored much higher than the Mill City on the HRC index. A timely filling of that vacancy could address issues that continually plaque the city in areas of hiring and retention of talented employees.
On the DEI issue, the council is not leading — much less from behind. Or as the Queen of Soul famously said, “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”
Shining light on school hiring
SPEAKING OF the allegations of unfair hiring practices by the Lowell School Department, a familiar face who threw his hat in the ring for School Committee this past week might have some ideas on how to bring some sunshine to that matter.
Dave Conway, who has previously served on both the School Committee and the City Council, announced Tuesday his intentions to seek the committee’s District 3 seat, comprised of Belvidere and South Lowell, in this fall’s city election.
When asked for his thoughts on the school hiring situation, Conway — whose own career spanned four decades in Lowell schools, from the classroom to administration — tread carefully. Conway said who gets hired within a school building is ultimately up to the principal, but that the process should be uniform across schools.
If elected, Conway said he would file motions to examine and re-evaluate the hiring process to bring it forward to the Personnel Subcommittee “to find out, are we being consistent in the way we’re hiring people? Are we doing justice to all our staff and giving them an equal opportunity?”
He suggested that if there was anything shady happening behind the scenes, bringing the process out into the light of public meetings would quickly nip it in the bud, because anyone perpetrating such behavior would have nowhere to hide.
Chelmsford violates the law… again
THE CHELMSFORD Planning Board might be in trouble, but it’s got nothing to do with Riverneck Road, Davis Cos. or an industrial warehouse.
Before the developer updated the board and town on its plans at 191, 195, 199-201 Riverneck Road at the public hearing Wednesday night, member Annita Tanini brought up an interesting discovery: The board probably violated Open Meeting Law.
A week prior, Tanini said three board members met outside of the public’s purview. That in itself should not be a concern, as it’s not enough members for a quorum — the board is composed of seven members, meaning a quorum is four.
But the situation changed when Tanini shared “there was a request for the four remaining Planning Board members to come in” the following week.
“I believe that’s considered serial meetings on the same topic,” Tanini said.
Town Counsel Paul Haverty said three different members met “presumably for the same presentation and same information,” which seems to go against Open Meeting Law and qualifies as a quorum. Haverty suggested the board take the issue directly to the attorney general’s office.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office states the law “prohibits serial communication between or among members of a public body that reach a quorum of members outside of a noticed meeting.”
Haverty described the meetings as “workshop meetings” and also advised the board to be transparent about the conversations that occurred.
Chair Michael Raisbeck, Clerk Nancy Araway and board member Paul Mcdougall said they were all in the first meeting. Tim Shanahan and Vice Chair Deirdre Connolly said they attended the second, and board members said Associate Erica Clifford also went to that one. That means Tanini and Mike Walsh were the only members to forgo both meetings.
When Shanahan asked how this could even happen, Community Development Director Evan Belansky took the blame.
“At the end of the day, this lies with me,” Belansky said. “I apologize. I was not aware of that interpretation of the law. I don’t have exposure to that extent of the law… I will likely be required to take additional training.”
Apparently, Davis offered board members a chance to meet outside the public eye months ago, but “board members were reluctant to do that,” Belansky said. He reiterated that he was unaware of the serial meeting stipulation.
However, Connolly said she emailed Belansky — who forwarded the message to Haverty — questioning that part of the law.
Belansky said Connolly’s email didn’t specifically say “serial meetings,” but Connolly had a different perspective.
“I said serial deliberation,” she said.
“Yeah, those meetings weren’t deliberations,” Belansky said, to groans from the audience.
Haverty said he interpreted Connolly’s message as a question of meeting outside of public meetings, not specifically with the serial meetings point.
“Oh, well, now we know,” said Raisbeck, who was first elected to the Planning Board more than a decade ago.
At that, Tanini said there should be an established policy to not hold any such outside meetings, especially ones that are “controversial” like the Riverneck proposal.
Raisbeck, however, defended the board communicating on “procedural” matters with the developer, though Haverty warned him that it should never be more than two members.
“It’s perfectly reasonable for a proponent to ask procedural questions,” he said, agreeing they should adopt the rule that a maximum of two members meet outside open meeting.
Attorney Robert Buckley, who has represented Davis, interrupted to add that “no new material was presented” at those two meetings.
At this point, no one outside the members present at those meetings had any idea what was actually discussed.
Buckley said they sought information on the traffic monitoring, curb cut locations on Apollo Drive — Raisbeck called them “does-this-make-sense kind of questions.”
“We just listened,” Shanahan added.
The board passed the new policy, with Tanini voting no, as she’s “in favor of not having these, period.”
“I think from transparency’s perspective, and I’m sorry, I have to sign off on (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) documents, and I cannot have anything like this, not even close to any impropriety, anything like that happening,” Tanini said. “So, I will have to write no, because we should have a black-and-white policy.”
Once passed, Haverty said he’ll be informing the attorney general, again stating the board should talk about what was discussed.
Raisbeck, however, continued to be quite vague, adding it was another conversation about the fire lane and other concerns, though “we didn’t take specific notes.”
The plan’s have since been revised, post-violation, Buckley said.
Connolly made a request that they release the minutes from those conversations, but the board made no motion to do such.
What does Chelmsford taste like?
THAT’S THE question swirling on Greater Boston Twitter the past week, after a Market Basket shopper posted a photo of the grocery store-brand soda.
“What’s wrong babe? you’ve barely touched your Chelmsford flavored soda,” @Stevemerkle9 Tweeted Monday morning.
The label on the bottle features a map of New England, with “Chelmsford” sprawled across the top of Massachusetts. And it’s only 99 cents, a bargain!
“i just know it tastes like car exhaust,” one user said in response.
“couldn’t be me, I only drink Billerica,” another said.
A reply to that Tweet stated, “Billerica ginger ale is just flat Coors lite.”
“Get it with your 7 Upton, Dr. Pepperell and Cotuit-cola,” another response said.
And no, Chelmsford doesn’t taste like an “eroding” commercial tax base, NIMBYS or hockey god Jack Eichel, who hails from the town.
According to a taste tester at Boston.com, Chelmsford soda — or “golden ginger ale” — is sweet with a cream soda aftertaste.
The drink dates back more than 100 years, to when Chelmsford made ginger ale in town, first through the Chelmsford Spring Company and then the Chelmsford Ginger Ale Company.
Polar Beverages now makes the somehow-sorta-locally-popular drink, though apparently it’s not the original recipe, which stopped being made in 2003 by Canada Dry.
The eye of the beholder
BEAUTY IS in the eye of the beholder where the proposed Murphy’s Farm in East Dracut is concerned. To the state it may be a thing of beauty, but to town residents it could have some unattractive consequences.
This past week it was the Dracut Planning Board’s turn to comment on the proposed 300 units of four-bedroom rental housing on 50 acres next to the Methuen line.
Planning Board members seemed as dismayed as the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee about the size of the project. And they were just as aware of the limits of what they can do because the developer, Andover-based O’brien Homes, is seeking state approval for a Chapter 40B development. That means designating 25% of the units as affordable.
Permission to build the homes is almost solely up to the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and to a lesser extent the Conservation Commission, to impose conditions for the developer. The Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board can only give comments to the state and then to the ZBA.
Community Development Director Alison Manugian did not relieve concerns of the Planning Board when she described how a state official reacted to the project during a recent site visit to the 50 acres which would form Murphy’s Farm. “He was really excited about it,” she said.
“The state considers this to be a very beneficial project because it’s creating much-needed housing, affordable housing,” she said.
Because of the need for affordable housing, the state supports dense housing developments. The current proposal from O’brien Homes is definitely substantially more dense than the proposal that was approved by the Planning Board in 2017 for 22 units of singlefamily homes on the same 50 acres.
So-called Chapter 40B affordable housing is a provision of a law first passed by the state Legislature in 1969 and updated occasionally. Towns where less than 10% of the housing stock is affordable — Dracut’s is a little over 5% — have faced the prospect of adding housing units that qualify in an effort to meet that goal. If deemed eligible by the state, developers are able to bypass local zoning laws.
Regardless of whether the development is 40B or not, 300 units of four-bedroom housing would see the population of Dracut’s schools balloon by approximately 1,000 students. And the Dracut school system is already at or near capacity.
To be sure, the school system is currently working with the Massachusetts School Building Authority on a project in the neighborhood of the proposed development. But those discussions have just started and participants are trying to determine whether the Campbell School simply needs renovation, or an addition or brand new school. The MSBA does not move quickly in deciding to help fund a school project.
Manugian said that the ZBA and the developer will be involved in many meetings and discussions before a comprehensive permit is granted. She anticipates “lots of conversations with the applicant about what the impacts and concerns are. What we have now is sort of the opening salvo.”
It’s going to be many months or a year before the ZBA grants a comprehensive permit for the project. In the end, Murphy’s Farm is unlikely to look exactly as it does now. Whether the changes will quell all the concerns in Dracut remains to be seen.
This week’s Column was prepared by reporters Melanie Gilbert in Lowell, Cameron Morsberger in Chelmsford, Prudence Brighton in Dracut and Enterprise Editor Alana Melanson.