While We Were Out...

Go away for a week, and a mayoral candidate drops out. Huh.

It's old news by now, but it's worth touching on here. Rachel Rosenfeld dropped out of the mayor's race last week, just a few weeks after getting in. She never got the chance to knock on a door, print a yard sign, or even get signatures on nomination papers.

On her website, Rosenfeld wrote: "The very simple fact is that I do not have the physical stamina required. While I see very clearly the job that needs to be done, I also see very clearly that I do not have the physical resources to push this tremendous boulder up the hill. To make it through a successful campaign and not survive the elected term would leave the city in worse turmoil."

From the get-go, her health (she's never been shy about her ailments) has been a question. I asked myself in an e-mail interview. Here, in full, is her response: "It is not an issue for the citizens. Just don't smoke near me. I have never failed in a commitment to family, friends, community or synagogue. I have the personal assistance I need for any mobility issues that may arise, my reasoning and intellect are superb, and I don't plan to invade a foreign country or sign up for any cross country hikes. I have as examples Ted Kennedy, JFK, FDR and a close relative Cordell Hull (who had the same familial disease for most of his lifetime), as well as my own mother and grandfather who dealt with this inconvenience for many years. I have the advantage of knowing both my abilities and my limitations and while my abilities will be an asset to the city, the citizens will not be inconvenience in any way by my limitations. My breathing and mobility issues have taught me the value of persistence, objective and goal setting, patience, and priorities. Similarly my financial issues have brought home priority setting and strict fiscal management."

That was posted on Feb. 19. Less than a month later, she's gone.

Why?

Certainly, her health, unfortunately, is an issue. Campaigns take a chunk out of anyone. If health is already an issue, why go through that meat grinder? Perhaps the more she thought about it, the more she thought she couldn't win.

If I had to guess, she quickly decided she didn't need the headache. She took a pretty good beating here, but that was nothing compared to the S&E forum, where she was absolutely obliterated very quickly. There were some things that weren't mentioned here that were aired out rather fully (and in some cases, perhaps inaccurately) elsewhere. It was brutal.

Here's the thing. Whether it was here, on her website, or elsewhere, Rosenfeld had made a name for herself. Some people liked her. They thought she was smart, passionate, and right. Some people didn't like her. They thought she shot from the hip, was condecending, and didn't really have any solutions. Apparently, those that didn't like her really didn't like her.

It will be interesting to see what she does next. Will she go back to being everywhere and anywhere in her opinions? Will she pick up the activity at her website, which traditionally has been a little sporadic in updates? Will she reign herself in after what happened over the last three weeks?

It might seem ridiculous to ask all those questions of a Internet-based commenter who was in the mayor's race for all of three weeks. And if a legitimate challenger to Mayor Lisa Wong doesn't bubble up, the questions are probably moot. But Rosenfeld has shown, if nothing else, she's hell bent on getting Wong out of office. If someone rises up to take on Wong, they'll have a cheerleader/hatchetman in Rosenfeld to rely on in some capacity. It's a good bet right now Wong doesn't have that challenger, but if so, Rosenfeld will play some kind of role in the next election.

No One. No Way.

One thing that was reinforced by Rachel Rosenfeld's mayoral announcement last week: The top suspects for the job aren't interested.

As first reported in the Fitchburg Pride over a month ago, the names that kept coming up as potential challengers -- Joel Kaddy, Dean Tran, Marcus DiNatale -- are taking a pass. Rosenfeld said she asked them to run, and they declined.

Why?

Well, here's a few possible factors:

First, maybe Lisa Wong isn't doing that bad of a job. No matter what you thought in 2007, the top issue was the city's finances (although Ted DeSalvatore would disagree, but no one believed him then. Or now). Both Wong and Tom Donnelly ran on a platform of fixing the city's finances.

Just over a year into her term, and maybe she hasn't done so bad. Library fans are screaming right now. Fair enough. But the overall picture is better than it was a year ago. There's $1 million in the stabilization fund. The city hasn't laid off dozens of workers. The city is making do, even though there's less money and fixed costs are increasing.

Wong detractors don't want to hear it, and that's fine. But if you were running for mayor, what would have done differently. Differently that wouldn't piss off a whole bunch of people. For example: if you restore the library's $800,000, where do you take the $800,000 from elsewhere?

Wong has made plenty of missteps: She's been shaky handling delicate personnel issues, she's sticking to a trash fee plan that seems DOA, and she's done just cutting in various departments to get everyone upset with her. But if you're running for mayor, are there enough holes there?

Second, and relatedly, has she done enough wrong to lose 2,000 votes? She won in 2007 by winning about 75 percent of 8,000 votes. To knock her off, you need to get about one-third of the people who voted for her change their minds. Can you do that? That's tough math to run on.

Third, who wants the job right now? Wong had to cut $1 million this year, and $4 million next year. She's getting slaughtered for it. She asks for more money, and she gets double slaughtered for it. If you're watching this, aren't you thinking, "I'm not doing this. Especially for $60,000." Love for the city only goes so far. Consider Tran. He's got a family, a good job, and enough headaches on the council. Is all that garbage enough to quit your job, lose family time, and get pounded on a daily basis? Who wants to go through that? And if you think I'm crazy, as Rosenfeld how it's gone for her over the last week. My last post was, um, highly cynical of her candidacy, and I didn't even come close to treading on issues or with a tone that you'd see elsewhere (I"m looking at you, S&E commenting forums). Who needs it right now?

Fourth, take all of the issue above, and drop everything else for the next 10 months. Go knock on thousands of doors, beg for roughly $1,000 a week, and spend every waking moment wondering how to pull this off. Good grief.

So, it's no wonder there's minimal talk for mayor candidates right now. Is there a more unappealing job in Fitchburg right now?

* * * * *

Perhaps more on this at a later date, but as I write this we're watching Andre Ravenelle's budget presentation right now. Between his enthusiasm, intelligence, and suprises like he subs in a classroom once a month, this guy is very, very good. Why do I worry he's going to bolt soon?

About Rachel Rosenfeld

Two parts to what is probably going to be a giant post. First, a Q&A with Rachel Rosenfeld (that's "Really Rachel" in these parts) via e-mail. Nothing changed in questions or answers. I'll admit it's not comprehensive, but it touches on background, a few issues, and gets the ball rolling. Second, a few of my thoughts on her announced candidacy for mayor.

Part 1:

Why are you running for mayor?
I love Fitchburg. I sincerely believe I can lead the city in the direction the citizens of Fitchburg would like to see the city go.

What made you decide to dedicate 10 months on a campaign and an election?
If not me, who? If not now, when?

How long had you been considering running?
Many years, Jason.

What's your message? What are the important things that you think you're going to be talking about?
Respect. Teamwork. Bringing the city government - processes, technology, methodology into the 21st century. Sound fiscal management. Public safety. Healthcare. Community. Resurrecting Fitchburg. Unitil, energy and technology. Elderly, disabled, families, children - people as the priority. Accountability. True transparency. Consolidation, coordination, cooperation.

You've certainly been critical of the incumbent. How much of that will be part of your campaign?
Critique and compare. We have differing opinions of how best to serve the citizen-taxpayers of Fitchburg. The voters will see a marked difference between us based upon her record and my platform.

Have you ever run for public office before? If so, where and when? How'd it go?
Ran for planning board many years ago in Shirley against an incumbent townie. Spent no money, didn't campaign. Got nailed to the wall. And got my message across.
Helped to organize and was the co-chair of the Northern Healthcare Coalition, the grassroots group from 12 cities and towns that fought the closure of Burbank Hospital during the Bean administration. We preserved an urgent care center at the Burbank Hospital and ALS ambulance service in Fitchburg. First time in history that DPH ever
issued an order of conditions on the closure of a hospital. Hence my undying loyalty to Emile Goguen who poured himself heart and soul into it while his late wife Connie was undergoing chemotherapy.

What's your organization looking like? How many volunteers or staffers do you think you have now? How many do you want as the campaign gears up?
Volunteer recruitment isn't underway but all are welcome. Folks can email me. ReallyRachel@verizon.net isn't a big secret.

How much money do you expect to raise?
As little as possible to run a campaign on a shoestring - the same way I live, the way I mean to manage the city - do the maximum with the minimum.

There's a couple of schools of thought on door-knocking: That it's very valuable, that it's merely window-dressing. How do you feel about it? When do you think you'll start knocking on doors?
To be decided.

You've been pretty open about your health issues. Do you think you're healthy enough to serve a two-year term and be available 24/7 as the job seems to dictate?
It is not an issue for the citizens. Just don't smoke near me. I have never failed in a commitment to family, friends, community or synagogue. I have the personal assistance I need for any mobility issues that may arise, my reasoning and intellect are superb, and I
don't plan to invade a foreign country or sign up for any cross country hikes. I have as examples Ted Kennedy, JFK, FDR and a close relative Cordell Hull (who had the same familial disease for most of his lifetime), as well as my own mother and grandfather who dealt with this inconvenience for many years. I have the advantage of knowing both my abilities and my limitations and while my abilities will be an asset to the city, the citizens will not be inconvenience in any way by my limitations. My breathing and mobility issues have taught me the value of persistence, objective and goal setting, patience, and priorities. Similarly my financial issues have brought home priority setting and strict fiscal management.

You've talked in the past about how the Mayor's Office is too powerful. How would you work as mayor to reduce the office's power. Would you push for a charter commission to change from mayor to manager?
The last thing I want is to be "Lady Rachel" or "Queen Rachel" and our archaic strong mayor weak council government is set up for just such a scenario. It's modeled on the old English Lord Mayor - Privy Council model that has not been in use in England for a very long time. The reason given for not having pursued charter review and revision has always been that it's too hard, complicated, confusing, time consuming. I have the time and the doggedness to see it through, or at least make a heck of a good start during a term in office.
In addition, the very setup causes unnecessary conflict in the city. There is no reason a mayor and a city council should find themselves in an adversarial position if all have the best interests of the taxpayers at heart. Our current system is practically a bloodsport and it needs to be realigned so that there is a truly balanced balance of power, and equalization, with management responsible to the board of directors, i.e. city council. Sounds like I lean toward a city manager form of government - I've seen it work well and I know there have been issues elsewhere. That's why one person doesn't make that decision.
I want to see a more democratic (little d) form of government in Fitchburg where people feel they have a voice beyond biannual elections. Otherwise they become frustrated and angry. And unlike sausage being made, I believe people DO want to see the process and be involved in how things are done.
Lots of interaction between the mayor and the citizens, open forums, "mayor's open house" if invited to rotate at ward meetings, stay in touch with the people. I see the mayor's role as much more hands on with the people day to day, "mayor at large" with executive responsibilities.

The city is facing a $4 million deficit next year. How do you fill that gap?
One dollar at a time. Seriously. $4M is less than 5% of recent city budgets. You tell me you can't cut 5% out of your household budget and still preserve "vital services" at home.

How do you slow the rapid increases in health care?
What was promised during the 2007 mayoral campaign and never done. Sorry, that's a criticism. In addition to the not-yet-dead horse we've been beating for the past several years, there are additional options that may coincide with bringing healthcare access back to the city.

Would you favor layoffs?
Let's stop giving out raises like candy first. There may be alternatives to people losing their jobs through a well thought out, well planned reorganization program, reduction of hours of hourly workers without losing healthcare and full time benefits, a carefully crafted attrition program.

What departments would you target first?
I would never "target" a department or an individual. I don't believe in people as targets.
I will, however, target inefficiencies. The rationale "we might get sued" won't work. City vehicles are not for commuting. Period.
I would assess the mayor's office first. With computers there's no need for someone else to type my letters. Assistant to the mayor is an essential position (not a chief of staff). Administrative assistant could most likely be shared with another department. As those are two positions each mayor personally fills, I might choose not to fill the Admin Asst position.

Part 2:

So, what to think?

At the outset, you probably fall into one of two camps: "Go, Rachel. Wong needs to go." Or, "Rachel? Really? Isn't she that crazy Internet woman?"

It's no secret Rachel and I have had a, um, combative past. You can flip through the countless comments and catch the highlights. I'll be honest. I'm highly skeptical of her candidacy. Here's why:

First, she's lacking on some organizational basics. Volunteers are welcome, but I don't get the sense there's been a real effort to put together a campaign and organize. Legend has it that Marcus DiNatale has the best voter database and organization in the city through working for himself and his father. If that's true, Wong might have the second best. There are reams of information -- active voter lists, probable voter identification, organizing standouts, blah, blah, blah -- that someone has to do to pull off a well-run campaign. And "to be determined" is an answer on door-knocking that needs to be substantially improved.

Then there's the money. "Shoestring" sounds good, but rarely competes in a high-money race. The 2007 race was around $30,000 in the preliminary. I'm sure both Donnelly and Wong were in the $40,000 by the time it was all said and done. How do you compete with the mailers and the organization? The scrappy underdog only goes so far. Ask Ron Dionne.

Second, I'll call this the DeSalvatore factor. It's not quite what the Unicow posted today, but similar. As the campaign went on in '07, DeSalvatore started pulling his punches. He spent the first part of the year firing from the hip, and then when it got late, he got cautious. People were scratching their heads, and it came across as a bad performance in debates.

What does Rachel do? She created the "Queen Lisa" tag for crying out loud. Is she going to stop name-calling and play it a bit more safely? For my money, she seems a little tame in some of the questions above. If you doubt that, hit the comments. It's all relative. She's been raging for the better part of a year. Does she keep her foot on the pedal, or ease off? I'm not sure either is really a winning play. She might be stuck here.

Third, let's try to probe the thoughts of Rachel here. Does she really want to be mayor, or does she want a larger soapbox to hammer Wong, her archenemy? While the S&E pointed to her blog today as her launching pad, I'm arrogant enough to guess old SF does much better business, and that this is really where she made her bones. While I love old SF, let's be honest here, it's a limited audience. What's really her goal? Is she in it to win it, or hammer at Wong for the next eight to 10 months?

Similarly, is she a stalking horse for someone? She clearly makes the rounds, talking to councilors and other city movers-and-shakers. Is she going to throw bombs and clear the path for another candidate? If I didn't know any better, I'd bet on Tran considering his remarks in the paper today. But that's too cynical, I think. But weirder things have happened in politics.

Fourth, Rachel at some point is going to have answer to a lot of things she has said on her blog and in other spaces in the last two or three years. Some of it would cause people to take pause. I'd love to say I'm going to do it, but the thought of rolling through thousands of comments makes me want to cry. It's a long campaign, I guess I have time.

Fifth, she needs to prove she can play well with others. Right or wrong (and this goes back to me running through comments), most folks feel like she was pro-Ted, and bailed. And then she was pro-Wong and bailed. Personally, I know the feeling. Some days I'm an honest, dedicated guy, somedays I'm jerk blow-in.

Being mayor means playing well with others. You need to massage the unions, work with the council, keep the department heads motivated and working, and be the public face of the city, not only at home, but with regional and state officials. Who knows how she'd roll, but her history here would be Exhibit A of not really playing well with others.

Sixth, being mayor is hard, and there's a lot to learn. I don't expect her to know it all yet. But even for a Day One candidate, a question about a $4M budget gap deserves more than a three-line answer.

Seventh, she's gotta shift into some facts. Consider her answer on health care costs. The first part says nothing has been done. Not true. Wong brought in new coverage last summer that was cheaper than an old plan. So, there's that factual error. This also goes to the paragraph above. Making health care cheaper is a horribly complicated thing that include giant companies and many unions throughout city government. There's no sense of the magnitude of that task in her answer.

On this issue, she pulled for the S&E her quote about Wong not understanding how to live on a shoestring budget. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. But (as discussed here in the past) Wong's parents are first-generation immigrants who opened up a restaurant in Cambridge. Generally, restaurant owners aren't rolling in dough. During the last campaign, Wong talked about working in the restaurant as a kid. Yes, she went to BU and she's traveled a good chunk of the world, but I'm guessing she and her parents weren't commuting from Wellesley to the family restaurant, if you know what I mean. Does Rosenfeld have the Wong family W2s from the 1980s? Most of Wong's backstory points to a family working hard to get by and do what they could for their kids. So when Rosenfeld fires away like that, you either believe the hype, or question its validity. She can't afford to have people questioning her validity on anything.

Look, she's got a lot of time to answer these questions. She's a known entity from her spirited blog comments and posts at her site. But what's she really like? I've never met her in person, so I don't really know. Her announcement has certainly raised eyebrows, and it certainly plays well with the anti-Wong crowd. But is that crowd currently at 50 percent-plus-1? And if it is, will they all rally around her? It's unique for a new candidate (and by new, I mean never running before) to be this polarizing. How she runs, what she says, and how she says it will make for an interesting campaign, that's for sure.

And Then There Were Two

If you missed the news, Rachel Rosenfeld said today she's running for mayor. That makes her and the incumbent as the two on the ballot right now. I've fired off a slew of questions about Rachel's decision and her plans via e-mail. Hopefully I'll have more later.

Kaddy? No. DiNatale? No. Tran? No.

In tomorrow's Fitchburg Pride is a story that probably won't make those who want Lisa Wong out of the Mayor's Office too happy.

In short, there aren't a lot of likely mayoral candidates at this point, and if you're thinking of getting in, you're starting to spread the word now. But no one seems to be lining up the troops.

Joel Kaddy, Marcus DiNatale and Dean Tran -- probably the most popular names in the rumor mill -- all say they aren't planning on running this fall. They and others said they haven't heard anything in terms of buzz around potential challenge. As Steve DiNatale noted, if you're serious, you're knocking on doors as soon as the snow melts, but you're already figuring out inner circle and how to raise cash. Remember, it was well past $30,000 by the time Wong and Donnelly were all done. That's not small potatoes.

Who knows? Someone might be hedging bets, someone might be super-quietly laying the groundwork, someone might come out of the blue in the spring (a la Wong). But for now, it looks pretty quiet.

Why Can't We All Get Along?

Mayor Dan Mylott heaped another hot scoop of anger on the City Council today during his press conference. You can check it out at the Fitchburg Pride website, and sooner or later the video will be on FATV.

Clearly, this relationship isn't going to get better, at least before Nov. 6, and probably never. That's too bad.

Here's the thing: For a long time, when councilors have talked about how their hands are tied on money matters, I've talked about taking a stand and rejecting Mylott's moves until he does what he's told. "Can't do it," I've been told. "Too hard to do," I've heard. I've asked Donnelly about it directly, and it came up on my last appearance on "Politically Speaking" (Sept. 27, also on the FATV website, I believe).

So, last night they did it. Not sure how they're going to pay for some of the things they need to pay for eventually, but they made their stand and made their point to Mylott. What happens next is unclear -- both in terms of Mylott's reaction and the aforementioned paying for things like unemployment costs -- but one thing is clear: When the council is motivated enough, it will flex its muscle and its will to stand by its guns. See, it can be done.

Questions ... and Answers?

Here's your chance, beyond the random stop on your doorstep, to ask a mayoral candidate a question. If your question is a good one, it just might get asked at next Thursday's mayoral forum, aired live on FATV, AM 1280 "The Blend," and covered as it happens at fitchburgpride.com.

If you have a question, you need to put your name on it, and you to send it to me via the old e-mail.

The First Sign of a Plan

This is a straight steal from Progressive Fitchburg, which looked for websites on the mayoral candidates. If you want the rundown, check the Unicow (yeah, that's what the guy calls himself) out. Good read.

Anyway, for the last month or so folks have been wondering when Lisa Wong was going to start laying out a plan. There's at least a framework on her website here.

A few things we like:

- The creation of a 311 system, which allows residents to call those numbers for info and complaints.

- Not sure what the "Downtown 1000" plan entails -- beyond getting 1,000 people living within five mintues of downtown -- but I'm intrigued. I also like the fact that a key plan for a candidate has a fairly snappy name. It's the sign of thinking, creative campaign.

- A parking plan for downtown. I hope that means chunks of free parking on Main Street. That's important.

Anyway, those are three things. There are a bunch of other ideas, some general, some fairly specific. But if you're looking for an idea of where a candidate is thinking, you have three choices: Call 'em, wait for them to knock on your door, or check out websites and literature. At this point, the Wong website is the best we've seen so far both electronic and ole-fashioned printed.

The Mayoral Candidates Meet

A story on tonight's forum for the mayoral candidates is on the Fitchburg Pride website. From reports, it was fairly peaceful and offered basic info from the candidates. If you're interested, you'd better read the story. From reports, it's the only print media outlet at the event.

Oh Boy, Part II

It's been quite a week for budget news.

If you've missed it, let's recap:

• Mayor Dan Mylott doesn't turn in a line-item budget by his self-imposed May 15 deadline. Council erupts.
• Mylott says city is facing "unprecedented financial crisis."
• Letter from DOR says city probably looking at $1 million deficit in '07.
• Mylott assistant Robert Pontbriand says the city will need to slash $3.7 million for '08. Forget 20 layoffs, probably 30 or 40, and that doesn't include the schools.

So, the news isn't good.

For Mylott, this is very, very bad news. He has at least three qualified candidates looking for his job this fall. Mylott might be a good community politician, he might be a decent steady-as-she-goes manager, but at this point it's OK to wonder if he can manage this situation. He's going to have to account for this situation -- early and often -- when he's on the campaign trail. And his challengers are going to bring it up to the point of annoyance, and they should.

If nothing else, it's mystifying Mylott missed the May 15 budget. He said in his letter to councilors that things are worse than he thought, and that he's following recommendations from a DOR letter from May 11.

But it was clear before May 11 where the city's revenues stood. You can get a pretty good ballpark number on property taxes and other information. State aid was settled over a month ago. Maybe he was waiting on a miracle or slightly smaller piece of good news that didn't come in. Whatever the case, the delay not only pushes an important budget back, but it gives the council the softest of softballs to crush politically.

The council must be kicking itself, or at least it should be. The last two years it spent weeks hollering about how it didn't like the mayor's budget, and how it put the city at financial risk, and both times it stood down partially or fully. Too late now, but it should be a lesson learned.

Here's the larger issue now: The budget process with be a 3.5 week sprint, but the Council should start having its input now. The council, as it famously remarks constantly, can only cut the budget. Considering the situation, there won't be much to cut, and seemingly won't give the council much input. However, it should talk to Mylott now about its priorities, what it wants to see preserved and left exposed. It can't wait until June 5 to start the process.

It's going to be a long and busy 6 weeks, but it's an important busy 6 weeks. Together, we can, as Deval Patrick said one or two time. The mayor and council are going to have to do it together.

A New Poll

Out with the old mayoral race poll, which was months old and listed a bunch of folks who probably aren't running for mayor.

Instead is a new poll with the current list of candidates. Vote early, vote once, and let's see what happens.

Wong: 'I am running for mayor'

Lisa Wong, the former director of the Fitchburg Redevelopment Authority, said this morning she is running for mayor this fall.

You can read speculation on Wong's run in today's Sentinel, but if you want confirmation and real news right from the candidate's mouth, read more more at the Fitchburg Pride website.

Two More Years ("!" or "?")

Not that it was even remotely close to a secret, but Mayor Dan Mylott said today that he'll be announcing his re-election campaign next Wednesday night at the Fitchburg Art Museum.

It would be Mylott's fourth term in office if re-elected. Mylott had said for weeks he was planning on running again, and next week's event will merely formalize his campaing.

Mylott, of course, ran essentially unopposed in 2005, with only light write-in opposition. This year, three other candidates -- City Councilors Thomas Donnelly and Ted DeSalvatore, and Ronald Dionne -- have announced their plans to run (by the way, DeSalvatore scoffed at rumors he's dropping out of the race last week).

For more on the mayor's pre-announcement announcement (something that is more and more common in politics and get silly boys like me to write more about it), visit the Fitchburg Pride website.

Mylott Hammers Council Again

At his weekly press conference today, Mayor Dan Mylott was again critical of the City Council, this time for the council's vote last night on a resolution to hold off on union raises and negotiations until the budget is completed.

The council narrowly approved the measure last night, but it is not binding. Mylott called the vote "meaningless" and "inappropriate," and said he'd continue to negotiate. At least everyone is on the same page (sarcasm very much intended).

To read more from today's presser, check out the Fitchburg Pride website.

Mylott targets council in letter to the editor

Rarely do we label something a must-read, but you gotta check out a letter to the editor from Mayor Dan Mylott. It will be in tomorrow's Fitchburg Pride, but you can read it right now on the Pride website. It's highly suggested you take a peek.

The letter details Mylott's stance on the bond rating and city finances, with a bit of a tick-tock on when he knew about the lower bond rating and how he told the council about the issue.

More importantly, though, is Mylott's regular smacking of the council in the piece. He says they don't talk to him, don't understand the process, and don't come up with viable options.

Mylott says next year's budget will be balanced and maintain services even though there will be some organizational changes and maybe some cuts.

It's a pretty extraordinary letter. Go check it out.

Today's Mylott Press Conference

Mayor Dan Mylott reassured citizens they should not be concerned that city officials are borrowing $10 million to sustain the budget for the rest of the fiscal year.
The Mayor met with the financial committee last night to discuss the issue.
At his weekly press conference today, he said there was some confusion and concern at the previous night’s meeting about borrowing the money.
“It is not uncommon,” said Mylott. “We have done it before, it is not unusual or weird.”
The amount borrowed is about 10 percent of the total fiscal year 2007 budget, and is not a huge amount, according to Mylott
The money will be used to pay off bills for the rest of this year and maintain the city’s cash flow, and has no bearing on future spending, he said. Mylott will give his State of the City address Thursday, March 22 at 7 p.m. at the Kent Recital Hall at Fitchburg State College. He encouraged the public to attend as he addresses the progress the city has made in fighting drugs and crimes, and the financial future of the city.

More on the City Budget

There’s a totally awesome story in this week’s Fitchburg Pride about the city’s budget and a few councilors talking about lowering property taxes even as layoffs are possible. Here’s a few more things councilors said about the budget and city’s situation that didn’t get into the paper:

“My main concern, the thing I don’t want to see, is any anticipated monies that are not real. (Mayor Dan Mylott has) done that too many times for us in the past. Anticipated money from the state, land sales, whatever,” said Councilor Jody Joseph.

“I think in the short term what we ought to be looking at is the table of organization in our largest departments. And as uncorrect as this may be politically, primarily my targets are the Fire Department and the Police Department,” said Councilor Ted DeSalvatore.

“Leominster has one captain in their Police Department. Recently, our chief looked for room for a fourth. If you have a functioning Police Department with one captain, and the cost of one captain, what can’t we do that here? What’s the difference? What are the shortcomings in the City of Fitchburg that we can’t accomplish it like they do in the City of Leominster,” DeSalvatore said.

“Any additional revenue we receive through growth or the state should be viewed as a blessing. If the city practices proper financial management, I believe our current budget of $95 million (Fiscal ’07) should be sufficient. Any large increase should be viewed as fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, a respectable amount of the any additional monies should be allocated to an emergency account,” Councilor Dean Tran said.

“I think was we need to do now is, if we have a $94 million budget, and that’s all there is, we should be looking at a $92 million budget. We shouldn’t spend everything we have,” Councilor Jesus “Jay” Cruz.

“I, for one, don’t want an override. That’s why there are people like us in office, to prevent that from happening,” Cruz said.

It's going to be an interesting, and bumpy ride the rest of the way through this budget process. Unsaid in great, snappy quotes is a desire to make sure the budget is done right this year, and there is frustration from councilors toward the mayor. Joseph said he wants to start budget talks in early May, creating two months for negotiation and talks to get the budget done. Let the games begin.