The Cleanup Question

I commented briefly on this in another post, but it's worth its own post at this point.

Last night, the City Council went off on the city's cleanup efforts. Mayor Lisa Wong defended it, pointing to costs and reimbursements.

As I said in my comment, I don't really want to go through a day of "council said, mayor said." It's repetitive and doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

Here's the real question: Is it worth the cost to clean up quick, or should the city go through the longer hoop-jumping to get reimbursed for the cleanup. It is, according to projections that no one is disclaiming, a $1.5 million question.

In a vacuum, of course you want a fast cleanup. I think you could make an argument right now, today, that coming up with $1.5M for a quick cleanup would be a chore for the city. Did any councilors say last night where they'd get the money from? Looking down the road, the governor this week looked for expanded cutting powers, with mid-year local aid cuts looking more and more likely. You can bank on cuts in next year's budget.

So, you can't answer the question in a vacuum. I'm guessing the councilors have gotten a lot of calls, and want it stopped. But can the city afford to pay for the work themselves? And if you think the federal government is flexible in its rules, ask Townsend how that's working out for them (that town is ineligible for fed reimbursement, because Middlesex County didn't reach the disaster minimum cost).

It's easy to call up a councilor and say "Goddamn it, the branches still aren't picked up and my street looks like crap." But that doesn't take into account the financial side of things. There might be money for this, but there's red tape to deal with first, like it or not. If DPW goes out and starts doing it tomorrow, you can pretty much forget about it.

So, does the city have $1.5M to clean up the mess? That appears to be the question of the day. I'm leaning toward the reimbursement process until someone can detail where the money is coming from.

Hay for President

Stephan Hay was elected president of the City Council this morning, as was generally expected.

Some folks aren't big Hay fans. I like him. There must be some reason he got the nod from his colleagues.

I'll say this, Hay has some big shoes to fill. Tom Conry did about as well as could be expected for a council president. He was on the ball, available, listened, and ran a tight ship. At mid-term, this council looks significantly better than the council(s) before it. Hay will have to keep the council moving in the right direction, as aid cuts, Unitil, and other horror shows pop up in the next year.

In Praise of Joel Kaddy

The current City Council has been together for about a year, and at this point has any councilor been more proactive and forward-thinking than Joel Kaddy?

In the last year, Kaddy has separated himself from the pack outside of the Council chambers, and it's worth noting.

Early in the summer, Kaddy started weekly walks through downtown Fitchburg on Friday afternoons. They weren't always well attended, but it was a small step to drawing some attention to downtown and getting some people down there. I haven't talked to him about it in awhile, but I assume he'll back down there after the winter. I should have publicized it more. Shame on me.

Kaddy has also played a big role in getting Fitchburg First (finally) off the ground. The business organization works on getting residents to at least consider buying from local stores, promoting better services and competitive pricing. The birth of Fitchburg First was difficult, but Kaddy and a handful of other business owners (he owns Once Upon a Tile and Traders of the Lost Arts, both in West Fitchburg) have really gotten it moving in the last few months.

Finally, Kaddy took over getting the holiday lights up in the Upper Common. He rounded up volunteers, including some companies that provided bucket trucks while others donated food and a warm spot on a cold day. It might not have happened without Kaddy's crew, and if it did, it would have cost the city perhaps thousands more.

While councilors do a ton of stuff behind the scenes for their neighborhoods and individual residents, and some make sure they get plenty of air time during council meetings, Kaddy's work in the last year has been creative (downtown walks), important (Fitchburg First), and significantly community-supportive (the holiday lights). He's had a notable -- and noteworthy -- impact this year.

What's 10 Percent Between Friends?

Sometime in the next two months there's a chance that local aid from the state is going to be cut. Some people say it's going to happen, some people think it's going to happen, pretty much everyone hopes it's not going to happen.

The buzz is building around 10 percent as a cut figure. No one is quite sure if this true or not -- and no one knows if that's even an accurate number.

But it's important to pay attention to that number and that background now, as the City Council wrangles with funding (or not) union contracts this week. For the councilors thinking about not voting for the contracts, the problems with those potential local aids are their chief source of concern (along with perks, although we discussed that last week).

First, let's dispel the myth that a 10 percent cut in local aid would equal a 10 percent cut in the city's services. The city government receives a grand total of $11.8 million in local aid, most of it in the $10.6 million in lottery aid, state aid to fill in for lottery decreases, and additional assistance. A 10 percent cut of the city's government aid would be about $1.2 million, or about 5 percent of the $51.9 million spent on city services.

Now, on the school side, a 10 percent cut of all local aid would equal about $4.2 million in a $46 million budget ($44.1 million not counting Monty Tech). That's a far tougher cut (just ask the 25-kid kindergarten class teachers how they feel about it). But honestly, not relative to this conversation. I can hyperventilate over that later.

OK, back to the city-side budget. Of that $52 million in play, $22 million is wrapped up in employee benefits. Let's say you're whacking 5 percent out of that. How many employees do you have to lay off to save $1 million? )Honestly, that's a question. I don't know the answer.) The next biggest area is the cops, at $6.2 million. That would be a $300,000 cut there. Then debt at $5.3 million, but I don't see how that's cut. Fire is next, also at $5.3 million. That's a $250,000-plus cut there. Next is DPW, at $3.3 million, or $150,000-plus. Would 5 percent be cut across the board? Who knows? Probably not.

The council has a bit of tough decision here. It would go a long, long way for the city to settle these contracts. Would the few hundred thousand it would cost to do it be devastating to the city if local aid cuts happen? What's the level of cuts, however, where it would be bad to approve these contracts? 10 percent? 5 percent? Anything? Does anyone really, truly, know what's going to happen with local aid? (And if someone says they do, they're either lying or have a good Tarot card reader around.) It's tough to not consider potential local aid cuts, but it's also tough to vote against something based on something that might or might not happen.

Anyway, if you decide to watch this go down, there's your background on where things stand.

The Return of Dan Mylott?

Former Mayor Dan Mylott told the Fitchburg Pride today that he's considering a run for City Council next year. Read the story to get some more info.

A Good Move on Stabilization

The City Council did the right thing last night and approved a $600,000 transfer to the stabilization fund from free cash. Here's why:

First, it sends the message that the city is no longer interested in spending every single penny it gets its hands on. You want fiscal responsibility and conservatism, you're getting it (at least in a small, starter step). This $1.3 million in free cash set off something of a small feeding frenzy as a number of entities started drooling over it, but it's a good message to send that the priority is still shoring up the city's financial position and not spending.

Second, I'm pretty confident in guessing that if a few bucks are needed to settle union contracts, the council will provide the eight votes necessary to move the money. If there was a hold up on this, it was that a transfer out of stabilization needs two-thirds, while a simple transfer needs a simple majority. But considering the council's clearly expressed desire to take care of the contracts, it seems very likely that they'd maintain that priority and take it out. The one problem for the unions, however, is that who knows what might happen in the meantime, suck out some of that money, and make it unavailable. But the final piece I'd consider is the political factor. If Wong presents a police contract, for example, three years late and asks the council to pay it, who's really going to vote against it. So I'm not overly concerned.

All in all so far, the mayor and the council are doing the right thing with the free cash. There's still that question of what's going to happen with the rest of it, and it might be a messy battle of priorities, wish lists, and other territorial factors. But the first steps have been positive.

The Mayor's Bad Night

Last night won't go down in Lisa Wong's books as "one of my best nights as mayor." She saw her pick for DPW boss go down the drain, and based on early returns, that trash fee idea doesn't look so hot right now. Talk of "education" and "not the right time" is not heartening for trash fee supporters.

The trash fee was tabled by the committee, and maybe we'll hear more about it in the fall. What isn't going away is the DPW commissioner search after last night's rejection.

In case you've missed it, Wong wanted to hire James Shuris, who was fired from the very same job in 2003. Depending on who you ask, Shuris was an insubordinate who didn't file reports on time, or he got rolled by a personality conflict with Mayor Dan Mylott. He sued the city for wrongful termination, and lost.

If we can start to pull together an operating procedure by Wong, the Shuris appointment fits the bill. She reviewed the resumes, did interviews, checked the background on Shuris, and decided he was the best guy for the job. Forget the crap before, he's the best guy, and that's all that matters. The search committee -- including two councilors -- agreed. There was no complaints from that committee about Shuris' selection.

However, Wong took an already politically sensitive appointment and made it more so with a contract that looks bad -- $92K a year, 119 sick days from before, and a company car. Councilors hated that contract, and said so last night. But when Wong offered to go into executive session to discuss, they turned her down. Why? If the contract was the big hold up, why not talk about it.

It's interesting in that six months ago, councilors couldn't wait to get Dan Mylott out of City Hall. You'd think they'd take a second look at what happened in 2003, and maybe give Shuris and Wong the benefit of the doubt. But this appointment was pretty much DOA. If the contract was the main issue, why not go into executive session and discuss? I wonder if the contract was a convenient reason to vote against, or if there was something more there. But rejecting Wong's offer to discuss makes it interesting.

After seven months, it's probably a good bet to say yesterday was Wong's worst day in office. It exposed her weaknesses in politics (the Shuris appointment), her balancing act on finances (the trash fee), and her managerial style (she apologized for her handling of Bob Bourque).

Go way back to a year ago, when Wong was running for mayor. There was talk of the city going from mayor to manager. A lot of people said Wong would be that manager, in the Mayor's Office. From the very beginning, she said what she thought was best for the city was her main interest, with politics on the back burner.

So far, Wong the administrator has had a solid seven months in office. She balanced the budget, hired a good police chief, and rolled out a new monthly event that brings hundreds of people downtown. Not bad. But in some cases, the political talent haven't matched the administrative skills, and that was evident last night.

Now what? She'll need to find another DPW chief, one she at best likes, and doesn't love. Meanwhile, a potential step forward in finances looks weaker today than it did yesterday. No one said this was going to be easy, and that was proved last night.

A Hot Summer Night

For a midsummer meeting, tomorrow night's City Council get-together is going to be pretty interesting.

You've got the appointment (or not) of James Shuris as commissioner of DPW. If you've missed the curious tale of Shuris over the last few weeks, it's kind of too long for retelling here (scroll down to past posts for more). But council President Tom Conry came out against voting for him over the weekend, and past comments from Councilor Dean Tran make it seem unlikely he'll approve. Suddenly, Mayor Lisa Wong needs six votes from nine people. Should be interesting to see what happens there.

Then you have the Return of the Trash Fee, back after a little summer vacation. Wong sent councilors a bunch of info last week, including a slew of different proposals and a bunch of frequently asked questions about trash fees. You can see all the proposals and the FAQs by going here (of course).

Who knows where the trash fee stands? It seems Wong's original proposal has minimal support in the council, but what about some of the other proposals, which include just a flat fee and a bunch of different bag fee-only amounts? A few councilors have outright rejected a trash fee, but not enough to kick the thing to the curb. So what's the motivation at this point? The whole ride? Bag fee only? The council makes no decisions tomorrow night, but perhaps it will give an indication of where its leaning.

Enjoy the summer fireworks.

Cats and Dogs Living Together

As Jack Buck once said, "I can't believe what I just saw."

The City Council, during the budget process, moved money from one area to another through free cash and cuts. They can do more than "only cut the budget." Who knew?

In case you missed it, the council used some free cash and a cut or two from some other areas to fund new cruisers for the Police Department. These were the new cruisers that had funding cut under duress in 2006, and never had a chance last year.

This is good news for a couple of different reasons that have nothing to dollars and cents.

First, I feel like I spent the second half of last year howling into the wind that the council's hands were not as tied on budget matters as they claimed. One mayoral candidate in particular tried to wash his hands of all things budget problems while on the trail, leaning on the "the council can only cut" mantra. Then, and now, I argued the council has political power and legislative maneuvering to get stuff done. Ta-da. Look at this week's action.

Second, on some level, this council has some priorities. If they did in the past, it wasn't always clear. There was a feeling of 11-councilors-and-11-cabs no one really tried to refute. Clearly, public safety is a chief concern for this council. They targeted the PD, and are making noises about Fire. Let's see what happens there. Can this council do it again?

All of this is good news for the city. Watching the council over the last 18 months or so has been fairly interesting. You could kind of sense it was trying to figure out last year how to get going, but was so busy squabbling with Dan Mylott that it couldn't quite get there. Now, it's picking priorities and making things happen.

I like a proactive council, and I like what happened this week if only because this council is proving that it can pick a target and hit it. And it's only been together five months, which is also encouraging. The next step: being proactive on something other than budget survival. But I like this first step.

I have some questions on this, purely in the wondering sense. I wonder if this gets done if Marcus DiNatale isn't on the council. By all reports, it sounds like he was the driving force on this. I wonder what kind of signal we should take from this on the council-mayor relationship. She could have told them to stick it (although she said from the outset she'd go along with reasonable changes). You'd have to think everyone is getting along right now.

This isn't good news for everyone. If you're a library supporter, it's pretty clear that the council's general "public safety first" philosophy was more than talk, it was an action plan. While there may be some dollars here and there to shuffle around, clearly moving them toward the library isn't a top priority. And considering the library's big cut, I'm not sure there's enough dollars out there to fill in that hole.

While we're on the topic: the library folks will be out tonight, picketing during First Thursday and protesting the cuts. I'm not sure I'm a fan of that move. On the one hand, public protest is all well and good, but usually those protests are centered around political events, like a council meeting. This is a community event. But a high-visibility one. I can't say I blame them, but I think there's something to be said for keeping the politics with the politics. It certainly didn't hurt trash fee opponents to plan their protest around a council meeting.

---------

If you're tired of the Celtics, stop reading. If not, let's get ready for tonight.

First, here's what I wrote right after Garnett got traded to the Celtics. After, a few thoughts on those first thoughts.

UPDATE (4:55 p.m.) There's a slight change in the Garnett deal from what I have below. Rajon Rondo stays, Bassy Telfair goes. So long, Bassy, we hardly knew ye. That said, the more I think about it, the more I like that trade. A bunch of people have mentioned it to me today, and it's great that the Celts are relevant again. That alone might make it a great trade.

More importantly at this point, the Sox just finished a trade for Eric Gagne. That means in October, you'd better be beating the Sox after six innings, because Okijima, Gagne and Papelbon are waiting after that. Yikes. Sure, Gagne's back my cripple him any day now, but whatever. That bullpen is now ferocious.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear it. If you don't want to read about the Celtics, you're free to go. But....

My first reaction to the megatrade for Kevin Garnett was immediate anger. I didn't want to see Al Jefferson go away. Throw in two serviceable players (Gerald Green and Ryan Gomes), the C's best trade bait (Theo Ratliff's contract) and apparently the starting point guard (Rajon Rondo) -- and a top pick, and that's quite a bounty.

My negativity -- Rick Pitino would be so proud -- was that fact that the Celtics traded away the future we've had to sit through and nurture over the last few years. Coming on the heels of the Ray Allen trade, I was done with Danny Ainge yesterday afternoon.

In the long term, this might not be a good trade for the Celtics. In three years or so, when Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are all in their mid-30s, this will be an old team (hello, late 80s/early 90s Celts). There is so much money wrapped up in those three players that there will be little cash to flesh out the roster. By the way, who's the point guard? The team's two "best," Delonte West and Rondo, are gone.

But for the next two or three years, the Celtics suddenly matter. A lot. And for 82 games a year, we get to watch a star (Pierce) and a superstar (Garnett) on the same court for the same team. Cool.

More importantly, for the next two or three years, the Celtics are in fact contenders to at least make the Finals, if not win them. Part of that is because the Eastern Conference stinks. Bad. A Celtics team of its latter-day Big Three, me, and Dan Mylott would make the playoffs (allegedly Mylott is a great spot-up shooter).

Cleveland won the conference this year, and that team was a one-man band. Detroit's on the downside, Chicago is a player short (Allen or Garnett would be huge there, in fact), Miami could be dangerous if Shaq muscles up, but that mystique is fading fast. In short, the Celtics are suddenly in the mix.

So, today, fresh off a mini-vacation, I'm taking the optimistic outlook. Even at best, a fully matured Jefferson with Pierce and other parts would be looking at a two- or three-year window to compete -- in two or three years. That timetable just got moved up, and this team is more solid.

Obviously, it's better to have your teams always competitive and able to just reload through its monster resources (the Red Sox) or its smarts (the Patriots, although they're not my team. I'm a Raiders fan). To think Ainge and Doc Rivers will be able to reload this team is still not a trustworthy situation. So you have a two-year window to sit back and watch three stars try to get the Celtics back to basketball's biggest stage. That would be cool.

OK, thoughts...

I'm still pissed at how far off I was on Gagne. Boy, did he suck. I was so psyched when they got him, though. I'm a silly boy.

Nearly a year later, I'm also pissed I was upset for even 20 seconds about this trade. Hindsight is grand, but I should have been more excited at the time. I'm almost there back then (it was July 31, by the way), but didn't have it figured out then.

I think the one thing that was a big problem then, without an obvious solution, was the rest of the roster. Posey, Eddie House, P.J. Brown, none of those guys were even on the radar at that point. Glen Davis was optimistic potential. Somehow, Ainge pieced it all together. It's one thing to make a couple of good trades, but to fill in the back half of the roster the way Ainge did was a great job -- and probably a tougher one.

As you can see through the update, the rumor mill got the trade wrong at first. Obviously, hanging on to Rondo was gigantic, and probably allowed the Cs to get this far. Would Bassy Telfair have gotten into the Finals? Ugh. Looking back on this year, Rondo's growth has been the one of the best things to see this year. He's not all the way there, but he's significantly better than he was in November. Hell, in February, when Cassell jumped on, there were still questions about Rondo. I think at this point Cs fans are perfectly fine having Rondo on the court for 40 minutes, even when he's not playing his best. If nothing else, he just doesn't turn it over. After wrangling with Billups the last two weeks, he should have a little more freedom this go-around. He'll be a key, as usual.

I still think there's a two- or three-year window, and God knows what happens when Pierce, Allen and Garnett get creaky, but they're taking advantage of the window, and that's all that matters.

So, tonight's the night. For the first time in 21 years there's June basketball in Boston. I can't stinking wait. Let's Go Celtics.

What Fate for the Trash Fee

The more I think about it, the more I think tonight is going be verrrrrrry interesting as the trash fee gets a public hearing.

From looking at the comments here, reading Fitchburg Hometown, and hearing feedback from other spots, there seems to be very few folks out there supporting this -- at least publicly. And there are a lot of people who are flat-out against it.

Tonight is going to be interesting not because people are going to come out to complain -- the room won't be full of green-lovers under any circumstance -- but it will be interesting to see how many people come out and how many people get fired up, and how deep and broad the voices are against this. I don't think there's a middle ground tonight. I think the place is either empty and pretty quiet, or I think it's a big, fired-up crowd. I've leaning toward fired-up crowd right now.

Obviously Wong supports the idea, but I think the council is a different story. I think are there might be some conflicted folks among the 11 who are watching what's going on with the budget and desperately want to throw it a lifeline, but who are also fundamentally aware of the "higher water, sewer, gas, Unitil, so on" argument. A "yes" vote might seriously tick off a pretty vocal minority (not, mind you, a majority of residents, because that's probably a given. Concentrate on the vocal minority). But in the political math, would that vocal minority remember 18 months from now? Who knows?

It will be interesting to see how this is played tonight. Wong spent the last two weeks talking "go green" and linking the fee to recycling and making money. But last night's conversation that tied to the fee to cop jobs and other cuts -- while a realistic assessment of the situation -- now adds an air of political hijinx (justified or not).

There's a feeling in the city that people feel taxed out. Tonight, we're going to find out just how deep-rooted that feeling is, and what residents are willing to do about it. A big crowd tonight might make up some of the 11 minds that are paying close attention to this.

5 Million Questions

Part of the reason Lisa Wong was elected mayor last year was to tackle the city's budget mess. Facing a $5 million deficit next year will put that to the test right away.

City councilors are already preparing for a brutal budget season. Wong has been pretty public about delivering info to the councilors, but none of the news is good. The council seems to be somewhat content to sit back and wait and see what she does, which makes political sense, because Wong is going to be making some unpopular decisions pretty soon.

The $5 million hole is on the government side, and doesn't include the School Department. So you're looking at over 10 percent of the city's budget being cut. There's already a hiring freeze in place, but chances are, jobs are likely to go in some departments. Then what?

Interestingly, except for the brutal potholes that don't seem to be filled very quickly this winter, the biggest complaint people have after last year's round of budget cuts is the lack of an animal control officer (although on the school side there has been a drumbeat of concern over class sizes). In short, the last cuts didn't really get to the point where the average resident was seeing a noticable decrease in services (except for the potholes).

Will Wong be able to maintain that illusion in the next budget? That will be one hell of challenge.

The good news for Wong is that she didn't make this situation, she's inheriting it, and even Wong detractors recognize that. She's still figuring out what's going to happen, but she has about six weeks before the magic May 15 date the council needs the budget. Will she roll some ideas out in advance, in an effort to get ahead of some things, or will she just throw it out at once and deal with it in one shot?

At the same time, it seems obvious that fee increases are coming. How does that go over at the same point as big budget cuts?

The last few budget seasons have been nightmares, as the mayor and council warred and items like the trash fee proposal were awkwardly proposed. This budget season will be as much about packaging, public relations and messaging as it will be about numbers. If Wong can get through June without getting ripped by councilors (which might be difficult, a few are already starching her out on other issues. Some battle lines are developing), that might be her best trick yet.

Maybe That Extra $250K Is a Good Idea

Mayor Lisa Wong requested an extra $500,000 for snow-and-ice last week, and the City Council gave her half that. Four days later, it snowed another 10-12 inches in Fitchburg.

Save Fitchburg doesn't employ a meteorologist, but you'd have to think the snow predicted for Thursday night/Friday morning is going to put the city close to 50 inches for the season. Yikes.

Communities are allowed to deficit-spend on snow-and-ice. They can shift money around to fill in the debt, or carry it over to next year. It is not unusual for a community to overspend, so no blame necessary for the situation.

That said, the city has blown through its snow-and-ice budget, and everyone well knows, Wong didn't come into office with envelopes full of 100s tucked in desk drawers. A few hundred thousand here, a few hundred thousand there, and eventually you're talking real money, especially when your wiggle room is so limited.

The point: Snow sucks.

Get Your Committee Chairs Here

City Council President Tom Conry released a list of committee chairmen last night, along with committee members. The list is below. Enjoy.


Finance
Stephan Hay, Chair
Jody Joseph
Marcus DiNatale
Thomas Conry
Annie DeMartino

Legislative affairs
Dean Tran, Chair
Joel Kaddy
Joseph Solomito
Stephan Hay
Kevin Starr

Public Safety
Joel Kaddy, Chair
Kevin Starr
Norman Boisvert
Thoms Conry
Joseph Solomito

Public Works
Norman Boisvert, Chair
David Clark
Annie DeMartino
Joel Kaddy
Jody Joseph

City Property
David Clark, Chair
Dean Tran
Stephan Hay
Joseph Solomito
Annie DeMartino
Kevin Starr

Appointments
Jody Joseph, Chair
Stephen Hay
Dean Tran
Marcus DiNatale
David Clark

Records
Kevin Starr, Chair
Norman Boisvert
Marcus DiNatale

It's All Over

Lisa Wong was officially sworn in as mayor this morning, and Tom Conry was selected president of the City Council.

Two months after the election, all the celebrations and pomp are over (well, except for the inaugural ball this Friday). Now, the real work begins.

If you missed some of the fun over the last few days, or just want to relive it, check out the Fitchburg Pride website. There are stories, photos and videos covering a big chunk of the last two days.

Meanwhile, Back at Home

The city transfers power on Sunday, as Mayor-elect Lisa Wong drops the "elect" and is sworn into office.

It all goes down at 3 p.m. on Sunday at Fitchburg High School. Along with Wong, the City Council and the School Committee will be sworn in.

If you can't make it, don't worry. Hang out, watch and football. When Roger Clemens is done lying on "60 Minutes," head on over to the Fitchburg Pride website. There will be some stories, some pictures, and some video from the event. It'll be just like being there, but better. And then we'll do it all over again on Monday at City Hall, when another swearing in takes place.

Holiday Lights Fund Needs Leadership

What do Stephan Hay, Andre Ravenelle, David Streb and Stephen DiNatale (and, soon, Lisa Wong) have in common?

They are the only public officials who have donated to the city's holiday lights fund.

According to the list received yesterday afternoon, those four named above all contributed to the fund. Wong said yesterday she has written a check and someone from her office is dropping it off soon.

Interestingly, Wong said she wrote a check from her personal account, not her campaign account. Presumably, Ravenelle and Streb did the same (they don't have campaign accounts, obviously). I don't know if Hay and DiNatale ponied up from the cookie jar at home, or from their campaign accounts.

But here's the thing, every elected official in the city has a campaign account. Some of them might be depleted after the election, but chances are most of them have $50 bucks left in the campaign's spare change jar (which not only is a nice donation, but also gets a free message in the Fitchburg Pride. How can you pass that up?).

I'm loathe to get too much on my soapbox -- it's their money and all -- but it's worth noting the lack of attention this fund is getting from the city's leaders. As of yesterday, the fund is at about $3,500 (up from $2,500 last week, and not counting Wong's donation), and still has to get to $5,000 before the end of the season. Consider this: If the 10 other current city councilors and the three new councilors threw in $50 each, that's $650 bucks, almost half of what's left to go. And that doesn't include current Mayor Dan Mylott, the School Committee, and other officials.

Elected officials use their campaign accounts all the time for advertising in Little League programs and donating to charitable events. The holiday fund is certainly a legal destination for a donation, and is there a better one for the good of the city right now? The city was forced to gut the budget for holiday lights in the summer, but there's no reason why they can't help make the difference now.

El Presidente

Looks like Tom Conry and Dean Tran are the leaders for the City Council presidency, a job that is traffic cop, mediator, and consensus builder, amongst other things.

It'll be interesting to see which way this goes. Conry was solid as a first-termer, was the top vote-getter. He was on top of the financial issues, but rarely made big waves.

Tran, on the other hand, did make some waves. He was the proactive member of the council, and when things went south on occassion, he wasn't afraid to punch back. All of which are admireable traits in a councilor. But do they translate to the presidency? Tran gets along with all his colleagues, but remember those dust-ups with DeSalvatore? How does that play in the selection -- if at all.

Also, Tran had ideas, and moved on them. For example, the sex criminal petition and the landlord petition. Does he get distracted from proactive moves if he's running the council? In short, is council president the best spot for Tran to do his work?

All the above are questions that need a few answers before the council gets around to choosing a new leader. The selection process has certainly already started with phone calls, e-mails, and discussions. It will be interesting to see if this is a quick process, or if Conry and Tran -- and perhaps a mystery Councilor X (no ideas here, just saying) need time to find their six votes.

One more thing: Another indication of Wong's ridiculous victory. She got 5,863 votes. The next highest vote total on the ballot ws Conry's 4,303. She topped Conry by 1,500, and Conry was eligible to scoop up one of five votes, Wong one of one (obviously). Wow.

Predictions, Get Your Off-Base Predictions

Just in time for tomorrow's election, a set of predictions that will be totally meaningless at about 8:01 tomorrow night, if not sooner. Enjoy.

First, a few notes:

I'm not even gonna try to guess the School Committee races (like I should be tackling any of these, but whatever). It's not that I don't know the candidates, but I have no idea who's winning these things. Hard to get a sense of what the public is thinking on those.

Second, these aren't my favorites or even people who I'm voting for in a bunch of cases. They're just my predictions on who's going to win.

Here goes.

Turnout

Number: 6,000

Why: Actually, I think there's a chance it could be even lower.

I hear you saying, "Moron, 5,500 came out for the preliminary. You're an idiot." Yes, I am, but I'm an idiot who thinks the mayoral candidates in the preliminary pretty much maximized turnout. I don't think there too many more voters who are going to come out for down-ballot races, and I don't think the mayor's race is capturing a lot of new attention. So, there you go. I hope I'm surprised. And really, I probably should have learned my turnout lesson from the preliminary, but sometimes I need to be taught things twice.

Mayor

Winner: Lisa Wong

Why: Simply, the math tells us so. After blowing out opponent Tom Donnelly by 2,200 votes, Wong started the general election in the driver's seat, and she's done nothing to let go of the wheel.

Here's Donnelly's perfect storm: Wong voters are complacent after the big win, and don't show up. Homeowners revolt on the tax issue. The weather is absolutely terrible, and only real die-hard voters show up tomorrow (assuming, still, that he still owns the old-school crowd). You'd think Wong would be aware of the first, the tax issue doesn't seem to be polarizing (more on that in a minute), and the first part of the day should be rainy and cold, although getting better after noon, according to weather.com.

Donnelly has tried to bring it on home with the tax issue, but it's tough for him to get clear ground on this issue. Mostly, it's the fact that he voted consistently for the full 2.5 percent increases, and says now 2.5 percent is vital for the city. He's right, but it's tough to be the tax hard-liner when you support the full increase. Also, Wong says she'll make up any losses in rolling increases to 2.25 percent by bringing in new business. She says it so matter-of-factly, you just assume this is going to happen. Bringing in business to cover a $70,000 in property taxes (or $83,000 or $100,000), however, is no small thing. This is a fundamental part of the Wong candidacy: Bringing in new business. She's going to find some early success on that if she's mayor. Everything hinges on that, and it's easier said than done.

Second, I started coming around this morning on Wong's defensive/angry counter last Thursday. And here's why: She's 28 years old. Did any part of that performance come off as young, not ready for the situation, or intimidated? No. Never once in this campaign has Wong acted her age. It's really kind of amazing. And Thursday was part of that. She could have dismissed it or shrunk from the charges, but she responded forcefully. It took me four days to get here, but here I am.

Give Donnelly credit, despite the big task in front of him, he didn't quit, either through effort or dollars (that Weekend Mailer isn't cheap, y'all). He has driven hard to the end, but he came around the last turn with just too much ground to make up. His campaign has been talking up a late charge for the last few weeks now, but it needs the late charge to end all late charges. So, Wong's the prediction.

At-Large Council

Winners (in order, yes, I'm that bold): Dean Tran, Thomas Conry, Stephan Hay, Marcus DiNatale, Jay Cruz.

Why: Well, everyone likes Tran. He might not be everyone's top choice, but he seems like he's on everyone's top two or three or four. That's how you finish first in these things. Conry should be very strong. He might get caught by Hay and finish third to Hay's second, but for now, this seems about right.

I think DiNatale finds a way in. First, his name recognition will help. To say it doesn't is just silly. He's run a pretty good campaign, most notably an impressive performance in last week's debate. He might finish fifth instead of fourth -- maybe even third -- I think he's in the mix somewhere.

Cruz is a bit of a gamble in that fifth spot. He made a lot of waves with the dispatcher-police officer business, and turned off a lot of insiders. It wasn't his best moment. But it was a proactive moment, for better or worse. Also, based on the preliminary results, the electorate is looking for some change, and Cruz offers more change than some others on the ballot.

If Cruz is out, Annie DeMartino takes that spot. It's going to be close for DeMartino either way, like it was in 2005. But at the end of the day, I think voters are itching for change, and DeMartino gets lost in that wash a little bit. It's tough keeping her out of the top five, but there you go (Rachel, you may proceed with your launch sequence).

Rosemary Reynolds is in a similar position as DeMartino, but she's a non-incumbent former councilor looking for a way on. Considering, really, only spots four and five are probably in play, it's a tough nut to crack.

I really like Shaun Cormier a lot. He's a good guy who has worked hard and paid attention and probably deserves a better fate. But it's a tough, deep field, and he's going to probably have to take the loss. Hopefully he returns in two years. He and Patricia Carbone are two newcomers up against seven people who either are in office or have been in the past. Tough, tough nut to crack. If one of them end up top 5, it's the upset of the night.

Ward 1

Winner: Dave Clark

Why: Simply, Clark has put on a clinic in the last two years on how to be a ward councilor. Kevin Maynard wants his seat back, but Clark has given Ward 1 voters little reason -- perhaps no reason -- to vote against him.

Ward 4

Winner: Kevin Starr

Why: Starr and Steve Seney are locked in a pretty good battle in Ward 4 to take over for Ted DeSalvatore. This is a pretty tight race, but Starr gets the nod, if only because of the late news of Seney's business dealings and court dates, which have probably given voters pause right at the end.

Ward 5

Winner: Heads (or, Peter Allaire)

Why: Another tough one to figure, but I'm going with Allaire, and it might as well have been a coin toss. Honestly, no rhyme or reason for that one.

School Committee

Aw, hell with it. Here's two uninformed guesses. Why not at this point? Glenn Capone, Sally Cragin and John Chittick for the four-year seats. Although Bruce Marien might finish in front of Chittick. Why? Capone is a solid incumbent, Cragin is closely tied to Wong and her tidal wave, and Chittick has been running hard. I'll say James Reynolds for the two-year seat, but if you said Peter Stephens, I wouldn't argue.

There you go. Let's see how bad these are come tomorrow night. I'm guessing pretty bad.

Why So Quiet?

There's an election in six days, and the buzz on all things political is way, way down. Why?

Here's some reasons:

The Red Sox won the World Series. The last two weeks of baseball have most certainly taken away attention from just about everything else. Not only is it the only thing everyone is talking about, but after a bunch of late, late nights, people aren't really ambitious with other things right now. That is over, obviously, but don't underestimate the distraction the Sox caused.

The mayor's race is over. While that might not necessarily be the case, most people think that way. And considering how much has been said about both candidates up to this point, people might be moving on, on this one. Here's a question: Will the preliminary turnout be higher than the general election? Probably not, but consider: There are probably some fringish Wong and Donnelly voters who won't show, because of the general feeling the race is over. How many DeSalvatore voters are inspired enough to vote for somebody else? Similarly, could this be closer than people expect (the general concensus is Wong in the mid- to high-60s)? Let's say the Wong voters get a little lazy -- not a ridiculous idea considering the preliminary blowout. Let's say Donnelly's team generates some more votes. Will be it be close? I don't know, but the point is Wong needs to keep her base motivated over the last six days and not let the big numbers slow things down.

There' s zero excitement in the City Council races. The ward races are interesting: Allaire and Solomito are two solid options in Ward 5. Kevin Starr and Steve Seney are evenly-matched in Ward 4. Dave Clark is fending off the former Ward 1 councilor Kevin Maynard. The at-large race offers a deep field with four incumbents, a ward councilor looking to make the leap to at-large, a former city councilor looking to return, and a School Committee member on the ballot.

Why does no one care?

For starters, few of the candidates have generated much emotion or excitement. I think most people like Dean Tran very much, and I think he cruises into the top two or so next week. But beyond Tran, there are few councilors that most people naturally gravitate toward. I think, from what I hear, that Conry and Hay are in. A lot of folks are still livid at Jay Cruz, mostly on the dispatcher issue, and wonder if he has the goods. Annie DeMartino is considered -- as seemingly always -- on the bubble.

The field is deep, but lacks energy and drama. Getting a handle on nine candidates is a bit difficult, leading to more voter disinterest -- sometimes the big chores get neglected. This is an important race, and one that will go as far in shaping the future the city as the mayor's race, but it has created zero interest.

So, if you're up for it, discuss here. Why is interest so thin? Hell, who's going to win? I'm guessing it's going to be fairly quiet. It's going to be a weird year where the preliminary is the star and the general election plays backup. Just weird.

Hot Down-Ballot Action

As most of you may know, there are some races beyond the mayor on this November's ballot. And the Fitchburg Pride is here to point you down the path to enlightenment.

Of course it is.

In tomorrow's paper, there's a front-pager on the School Committee candidates, as they check on what's important to them as they campaign for election.

There's a sprawling op-ed page(s), which include short pieces from the six candidates in the three contested ward council races (Wards 1, 4 and 5). The at-larges get their chance next week.

Expect to hear about teamwork, stabilizing finances, and neighborhood issues from the ward candidates in tomorrow's paper.

Oh, hey, now is a great time to remind you all that next Thursday, Oct. 25, is the big Pride, FATV, AM 1280 "The Blend" mayoral forum. It'll be live on FATV and "The Blend," and we expect live coverage and analysis over the Pride website. See you then.