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.

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.

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.

A Look (Not Too Far) Back

If you missed yesterday afternoon's press conference (you can see it, and other press conferences at the FATV website. Kudos to them. They don't have power in their offices, and they're still grinding it out), you might want to check it out. If you have time.

I say that, because it was long. I don't know what happened -- I think after a week of hearing people complain, the collective reporters in the city had enough -- but Wong answered questions for 45 minutes. There were no real heated exchanges, no point where I can point to fireworks, no heroic journalists outwardly fighting for the people (and I'm not trying to create one), but it was a grind as she kept the wall up, and we kept banging away. There's only so many ways you can ask "How much does Unitil suck," but I think we collectively came up with about 17. I give the reporters there credit (and yeah, I was one, but whatever) for sort of deciding now was the time to push, and I guess she gets credit for not cracking.

My point? Only go back and read this post from last month. As people make a "Wong/Unitil" connection (yes, that's you Wally -- and others), check this post out. I can't think of a better way right now to describe what's going on. She all but said yesterday "I'm going to stay on message. Here's the message. I'm not going off it." There was an undercurrent of "I'll deal with Unitil later" in some cases, but she's not coughing up the magic quote the reporters are all but begging for, residents are frustrated for not hearing, and Steve DiNatale and Kevin Starr delivered on Saturday.

I guess I bring all this up because I'm guessing most people end up not watching the raw video, but reading the stories on line and in the papers, and they obviously don't see it all happening. The discipline and on-message style of Wong was frustrating to me last month, and I think it's frustrating everyone right now. But it certainly isn't new. I'm not trying to support Wong or anything else here (that means you, Lori), but I'm trying to help explain what's going on in the city right now, and how Wong is dealing with it publicly. I think yesterday's press conference and last month's post are pretty indicative of what's up.

Contracting Incentives

The council spent some time Tuesday night picking away at the police contract, and there was some grousing about the incentives and perks in the deal. Which are the same as the old perks and incentives.

Look, some of these perks are silly and need to get gone one of these day. I'm thinking the "no accident" clause is one. Some concerns are completely valid, and need to be addressed. I'm thinking about Dave Clark's long-standing effort to get new employees to pay a larger portion of health insurance costs.

Here's the thing, though. There wasn't a lot of wiggle room here. In some way, this is an emergency settlement.

Wong needs to get the unions to the table on the health insurance. Has to happen at some point. But isn't settling contracts that are two years expired top priority? Considering there's a whole different process on that, it could take some time.

More pressing are incentives. But really, how far could Wong go? And how far could the union go? The union set aside retroactive raises. The 4 and 2 percent bumps in January and July only go so far in curing that. The union left thousands of dollars per member on the table. You gotta give a little to get a little. The union left money on the table, it kept its perks.

Hopefully we can include "for now." It's easy to make political hay on incentives and perks. But getting them negotiated out is a whole different ballgame. You have to give a little to get a little (yeah, I'm repetitive), so what does the city have to give to get the incentives eliminated? Or does the city go nuclear, try to rip out the incentives, and offer nothing in return? That would be, um, interesting.

The bottom line at this point is that for better or worse you can't fiddle with the perks without giving something back. And considering how horrible this situation was/in, rolling them over at this point may have been the only way to get any kind of contract done.

A Reporter Complains

There's news today that two more union contracts were settled last this week. That's good news.

But for a reporter, this turn events is very frustrating.

At Wednesday's press conference, I asked the mayor four or five questions about the other pending union negotiations. In effect, she didn't answer any of them. She danced around them, relying on "not publicly discussing ongoing negotiations." One of the questions was pretty much "are other contracts close." She pretty much completely didn't answer that one. (If you really want to watch the oh so awesome display, I think you can download video here. If not, try here.)

Of course they were close to completion. She settled them a day or two later. But instead of even expressing optimism that something else might happen soon, she completely clammed up.

After I asked my first question, I knew I wasn't getting anything out of her. I decided to ask a few more questions, mostly to send some kind of signal that her non-answers were frustrating. I didn't want to grandstand, but I did want to push a little bit. I might have pushed harder, in retrospect.

She can say or not say what she wants to the public and the media. She's committed no great crime or treason by not spilling her guts. But if nothing else, that was the perfect example of the conservative nature of this Mayor's Office when it comes to publicly talking about things it might not want to talk about. From Day 1, Wong has a discipline that maintains walls around what she wants walls around. Whether it's a press conference, at an event, or in a one-on-one, she's very disciplined about what she says -- and what she doesn't say. Wednesday was a great example of that. I asked my four or five questions, but halfway through her answer to the first one, I knew I was banging my head against a stone wall.

I wonder if the public cares. As a reporter, I don't think it would have done any damage to express optimism that some contracts might be close, and that things were going smoothly. Heck, she wouldn't give insight into the character of the negotiations and her relationship with the unions.

I guess in the end, results matter. She's getting these things settled, and you'd have to think more are going to get done very soon. But a touch more sunshine -- not giving away the farm, but being a little more accomodating -- wouldn't hurt.

Police Get a Deal

The head of the police union says his members aren't happy with the deal. Annie DiMartino says she won't vote for a 6 percent increase. Sometimes, the sign of a good compromise is everyone hates it.

If you missed it, the police union and the mayor have agreed to a contract that gives the union a 4 percent raise on Jan. 1, and a 2 percent raise on July 1. (Note: those percentages are flipped from what you might have read in today's papers. Wong says the above numbers are accurate). There is no retroactive raises for '07 and '08.

The police union doesn't have to like this deal, but its members should be praised for accepting it. Big time. I'm amazed they pushed aside retro pay. The 4 percent is a pretty good number (a very good number), but leaving the retro pay behind is a huge move for them. Can't be understated. If you want a symbol for doing the right thing, the police union throws out a big one today.

From my simple calculations, according to the budget the patrolmen are being paid $3 million this year. The overall increase from both raises is about $180,000. (That hasn't been confirmed, and is merely a ballpark figure. Don't take it to the bank.)

But one of the big factors lurking behind all of this is the back pay that would have come with retroactive raises. If DiMartino is opposed to the 6 percent in total increase, how would she have felt if there were retro raises? Let's say the patrolmen salaries were $3 million in 2006. (Sure, that might not be accurate, but without raises, and layoff since then, the number is probably higher. Just bear with me.). Four 2 percent raises (in 07, 08, 09, 10) would cost the city a total of $247,000, or $67,000 more than the deal as structured. A good chunk of that would have been back pay ($121,000 according to two years of 2 percent increases starting at $3M). So, the city got the union to move away from retro pay. A huge move.

So, good for the union for agreeing to it, and good for the mayor for getting them to agree to it. I don't get the feeling they'll be holding hands together anytime soon, but it's a step forward for the city.

Now, what will the council do? If DiMartino is the voice of the majority, do they shoot this down? That might be the question of the day.

Wong Asks for Pay Cut

Mayor Lisa Wong is going to ask the City Council tonight to cut her pay by 2.5 percent. The money would be used to keep a fire engine operational.

You can read more about it here.

You'd have to think the Council will have no problem approving the request, right? More importantly, in the letter to the council seeking the change, Wong notes the city might be seeing a reduction in state and federal funding, and that annual raises might be a thing of the past. Or at least not of the near future. It's all in the story, which might be updated later, so peek back if you feel the urge.

Union, mayor back at it

If you didn't see Saturday's Sentinel, the police union wrote Mayor Lisa Wong a letter claiming she is out of touch and not properly funding the department. Wong said the out-of-touch claim is ridiculous.

Not good times for the mayor. The library folks are already displeased, and the union returns with more fire. And the police department got a little more money through the budget process.

So that's two departments that are looking for money, and are blaming Wong for the financial issues in their departments. There's probably a line where "no money" crosses into "out of touch." Has that line been crossed?

It appears pretty certain the police union is not buddies with Wong, and likely won't ever be. More bad news for Wong, especially in that they don't seem to feel the need to be shy about it. You'd have to think they'll be searching for a candidate to back next fall. You also have to wonder if other departments and unions are going to join the fun.

While we're here, it's worth noting that city councilors told the Sentinel they hadn't seen the letter. But the Sentinel had seen it, and I'm guessing it didn't come from the Mayor's Office. So you'd have to think the union is going to grind its ax in full public view the rest of the way.

But the bad news is now starting to back up on her. Her options are being reduced for next year. She can make run at overrides, or not. If she doesn't make a run at overrides, the library, police and others won't be getting more money and will likely get cut. If she does go for overrides, she'd going to tick off a whole lot of residents who don't want anything to do with an override. The likely outcome would be worst-case: She throws out override questions, everyone gets angry and shoots them down, and the departments still don't get any money, so everyone's angry.

So, what's she going to do? The original override plan went in the dumper with the deadline foul-up of earlier this summer. But at some point -- sooner rather than later -- she's going to have to decide one way or another which way to go on this. Either commit to an override effort or not. And by that I mean either move that way or don't. She can't wait until the holidays to roll out an override effort for February or March for next year's budget. It's gotta happen soon to get people prepared and understand what's going on. She talked about leadership a lot during the campaign, and now might be the time to show it.

Override Question Plans Ditched

Mayor Lisa Wong said today the plans to place a bunch of non-binding override questions on this November's ballot are not happening. You can get some background through the story at the Fitchburg Pride website. In fact, I'd say read that short story first, and then read on here.

Let's just say this situation is kind of confusing, in that there's different deadlines for different types of questions. It took two calls to the Secretary of State's office for me to get it all straight, and in the second call, we weren't sure if the non-binding part of the situation or the override part took precedence (it was the non-binding), and that was an important distinction because there were two separate deadlines.

Anyway, as of last week, city officials were saying they were aware of the deadline, and expected to move forward. But early this week, a new curveball popped up (which I found out in my second call to SOS) in the form of the need for special legislation. That, really, was the deal killer.

The SOS needs stuff by Sept. 5. If it was simply local approval, the council could have passed the questions on Sept. 2 and walked the questions to the secretary's office in plenty of time for the 9/5 deadline. However, the special legislation could only move forward after the council approval. Or, it would have to be filed, passed, and signed in three days. During informal session. On what might be precedent-setting legislation in that no one is sure if a community has offered non-binding override questions before.

Before yesterday's meeting at City Hall, Council President Tom Conry said in an e-mail "I suppose" the deadline could be met. Rep. Steven DiNatale was also talking like a guy who thought things were moving forward -- but honestly said he wasn't sure it was possible.

But the reality of the situation is that the three-day window between the Sept. 2 council meeting and the deadline was probably too small. For this to have gotten done, the council probably needed to see and approve the questions before the August recess. I'm not sure when everyone figured all this out, but the result is the deadline and the window are going to be missed.

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.

Chocolate Chip Pancakes and the Mayor

We have a standing Friday early-morning meeting with Mayor Lisa Wong at the City Hall Cafe to discuss the budget and other city-related issues. It's ungodly early at the end of the week, but the City Hall Cafe makes a damn fine chocolate chip pancake, so I'm cool with it.

There were a couple of items this morning that are of interest to Save Fitchburg readers.

First, I know where Wong was Tuesday night, and it was probably a meeting worth her attending. If something comes out it -- and there is optimism that it might -- I'll connect the two at that point. I'm sure the anti-Wongies don't care, but I was interested to find out, and I know she wasn't sitting on her couch eating bon-bons and watching "The Office" reruns.

Second, on the CVS issue. Here we go.

Honestly, this is an issue that has been slowly moving to my front burner, but it's kind of so complicated and multi-layered that I was kind of trying to avoid it, although I was on the verge of digging into it. There's more at stake here than one site and one building. There's a fundamental discussion about how the city does things, how it operates, and what its vision is. Complicating things is the relative importance of that particular intersection and its connection between downtown and the college -- a connection that everybody and their mother wants to see happen and happen correctly.

Wong is not opposed to a CVS on that location. What she doesn't like is a stand-alone, one-story CVS surrounded by a big parking lot. Or, take the Parkhill CVS, put on that corner. That's not what she wants. Instead, she wants a mixed-used development that includes a CVS (or other pharmacy to be named) and something else. Perhaps a coffee shop or cafe. A multi-level building is strongly desired, with the upper floors office space, housing, or FSC space. She wants the building to fit in with downtown, and closer to the sidewalk rather than surrounded by a big parking lot.

Here's where it starts to get complicated. The current "leading developer" builds one thing -- Parkhill-esque CVS buildings. Single-story, surrounded by parking lots. There is little to no wiggle room on building style with that developer. Wong says there are other developers interested who can build something closer to what she has in mind.

"It's not A versus B," Wong said. "It's A plus B."

For a long time, Wong has been talking about "not doing better, doing best." It's a fundamental part of her community development theory. She said it again this morning.

"This all relates to the need for community development to plan for what is the highest and best use," she said.

To probably over-simplify the issue, it comes down to this: Should the city take the quickest and easiest path, and wave through the standalone pharmacy, or should it take a little more time to try to work out a perhaps better option? That's where we're at on this particular parcel.

But for Wong, there's more at stake than just the corner of North and Main. This is the first high-profile development opportunity since she's been mayor, and it's sort of a precedent-setting situation. If she backs down on "best, not better" this time, what kind of signal does that send? She wants to use that strategy in a number of different areas in the city. If she doesn't stick to her guns now, why would anyone think she would in the future? There's some politics and long-term issues at stake here.

"We, as a community, need to stand up for ourselves and not sell ourselves short," she said. "We have such low self-esteem here. What I'd like to see is have us take pride in our city and ask for what we want to see to define our community before other types of development define us," Wong said.

So, there you go. There's where she stands on this one. I'm sure you're ready to fire away.

Budget Questions

Well, library questions, really. But it's all the same at this point.

If you haven't heard, the library trustees voted late this week to go with a $300,000 budget for next year, a cut of $800,000. This leads to the library being open three days a week.

While Mayor Lisa Wong has talked about not liking such a big cut, she hasn't talked about why the library was delivered such a big blow (nearly 75 percent. Holy cow). (Self-beating: I haven't talked to Wong in a week. Shame on me.) More big hits are coming, you have to think, and Wong is going to have to justify her thinking, or at least explain her decisions as this moves on. Considering how draconian some of these cuts are going to be, she's going to have to. She doesn't have to explain the situation, but she does have to explain some this. Or she's going to be hung worse than she already is.

Now, while we're asking questions, a story in today's Telegram says Wong wants the library to make sure the youth library stays open. Initially, it was going to be shuttered. In the story, the library director says it will cost $75,000 to staff the youth library at 22.5 hours a week. That's 1170 hours a year. That comes out to over $64 an hour. How many people are working back there? If it's three, that's pretty good coin for a part-time job. Sign me up. If it's less than three, holy cow. If it's more than three, is that really necessary? How many people are needed back there at one time? I've been there randomly over the last few years, and I've seen at most three families at once back there (but I haven't been for a story hour or whatnot). Which leads me to my final question: Considering what's going on in the city, isn't there a way to keep the youth library open for less than $75k/year?

Let the week of questions of begin.... now.

Here's Your "Trash Fee"

It's not a straight out trash fee, but Mayor Lisa Wong is proposing a pay-as-you-throw program for the city. Public hearing May 14. Details are at the Fitchburg Pride website. The down-and-dirty: You'd have to buy special bags at the grocery store and elsewhere (75 cents for small bags, $1.50 for big ones) for your trash. The idea if you're paying for the bags, you're going to cram a lot of stuff in there, and put more stuff in your recycling bin.

I'll say this, for now. If this is going to happen, the city is going to need to get their hands on a lot of recycling bins, and get them out there, fast. I'm not talking hundreds, I'm talking thousands. If we're supposed to get serious about recycling, we'd need double our current two bins at the Save Fitchburg Mansion. Probably even more than that. Someone in the Pride office lives in an apartment, and has no bins. I'm sure he's not alone. If you're going to want people to recycle and save money, you have to give them the means to do it. Wong says she will, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a big task.

Wong also said the budget won't include money for raises. That public acknowledgement isn't going to go over well.

When Does It End?

I know, I know, I owe a post on the new chief business. I'll get to it eventually. It's a little more cumbersome than I first thought.

Anyway, while we're here, a few thoughts (OK, a lot of lengthy thoughts) on yesterday's disappointing disappearing act by the PD at Police Chief Robert DeMoura's swearing-in.

When does this end? When my 4-year-old (5 tomorrow, but you get the point) pouts "It's not fair," we generally laugh or ignore her. But this isn't funny, and it can't be ignored any more. And yes, I'm purposefully comparing the police union to a bunch of 4- and 5-year-olds.

If you didn't hear -- the rumor mill was blazing about this late last week, so it wasn't a big shocker -- police officers took a pass on yesterday's swearing-in. Just the latest in the union's pity party over DeMoura being chosen. At some point, one of two things are going to happen. The union is going to get over it and move on. Or it won't, and the people they work for are going to suffer for it, if they aren't already.

The union has a number of gripes with the city, some valid, some not. In most cases, the gripes focus on how horrible Lisa Wong is, which is mostly not valid. If you need a refresher, skim through the many, many comments on the Police Department from Receivership and others. That should get you up to date. Let's review:

The department needs new cruisers. This is a valid need. The cruiser money has been cut in the last two budgets, and you'd have to think it's not coming this time around. Sadly, the city is in financial straights. It has nothing to do with being anti-police or anti-police union. Can Wong and DeMoura find money for cars in this upcoming budget (with the $5 million hole in it)? I think the union and the officers understand the situation. This is becoming more and more of a priority, but I'm not sure it's going to be taken care of this year, sadly.

The officers desevere a raise. Heck, who doesn't? And yes, the union raise situation is a very messy one. And yes, it's a valid demand in a vacuum, but not in the current economic environment. But you know what, it's not really Wong or DeMoura's fault. And by "not really," I should say, "not their fault at all." It's one of the many messes they inherit. But the union also has to realize that they got hooked up a little bit last year when the dispatchers were let go. Also, the current financial situation creates this potential quandry: Raises, but layoffs. Or, more likely, raises, but even more layoffs. My perception has always been that unions in general prefer raises, even in the face of layoffs. I don't know if that's the case here. But considering the current financial situation, the cries for a raise probably won't go too far with the public. Especially a public that seems to be fighting its own economic hardships. But maybe that's just me. The police union got hosed on raises. But you can't remake the past. You can only deal with the present, and it's not a present that seems very bright-looking on this point. The union is right to complain on this one, but there may not be very much it can do on it, either.

DeMoura is the chief. Completely not valid. Take off "Fitchburg" in Paul Bozicas' resume and "Lowell" in DeMoura's, and replace them with "Smallville" and "Tinytown." Most people would agree that DeMoura was the better candidate. I hate to crank on Bozicas even a little bit, because he's a good guy and would be a good chief, but I'm still waiting for someone from to argue that Bozicas was the better candidate, not just that he's the local guy.

I'm also still waiting for someone to say "We're moving on." Hell, I'd take, "We're disappointed, but we're moving on." At this point, "We're bitterly disappointed and think Wong and DeMoura are Mrs. And Mr. Evil, but we're moving on," would be OK. Yesterday most certainly wasn't that day, apparently. Instead of taking the high road, the union continues to drag this out. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the PD today, although it will probably be about as uncomfortable as Michael Scott's condo (if you saw last week's "The Office," you know exactly what I'm talking about). Despite the no-show, DeMoura is still showing up for work today.

Here's, now, the question. Up to yesterday, it was OK to write the union's stance off as sour grapes, and maybe the need for a little time to get over and move on. But, clearly, they are not moving on, and probably don't plan on moving on anytime soon.

Which is OK, I guess, but the professional and responsible move would have been to show up. The union, like Wong and DeMoura, work for the taxpayers of the city. We elected Wong, who in doing what she thought was right for the city, picked DeMoura. The union has acted throughout as if the chief works for it, not the city. Now, the union has made its professionalism and responsibility while on the job open to question. After this latest move, how can you automatically assume officers are going to work today with an open mind and a focus on working for citizens, when they clearly have self-created a distraction that they aren't getting over? This is a situation it created over the last few months.

DeMoura has a mandate to make the city safer, but does he have the tools and manpower dedicated to that mandate, or a union that only wants to make him miserable and set him up for failure? It's more than a political question, it's one that gets to the very heart of the safety of the 40,000 people that live in this city. It's sad and unfortunate that the union has forced it to be asked.

10-1

What to make of the 10-1 vote on incoming Police Chief Robert DeMoura? Was Ward 3 Councilor Joel Kaddy sticking to his guns, or is this a piece of evidence to a larger battle with the mayor?

Kaddy was a Tom Donnelly guy during last year's campaign. He said all the right things after Lisa Wong was elected and took office, but Tuesday's vote along with Kaddy's previous comments on the chief and some buzz regarding Kaddy trying to run around the mayor on some other things has to make you wonder.

Kaddy didn't want DeMoura. He wanted Bozicas. Fine. He wasn't the only one. But traditionally, one of two things happen in these situations: The one holdout councilor either toes the party line and votes in favor of the obvious candidate, or the councilor votes against, but immediately after asks to has his or her vote changed. In both cases, the councilor includes a little speech about getting along and being a team player and promoting unity and all that. It sends the message that bygones are bygones and everyone is ready to move forward.

But that didn't happen here. Why? Kaddy should have read the handwriting on the wall. He knew how this was going down. So why not take the traditional path? Why not vote for unity and welcoming the chief and all that, instead of reminding everyone one more time how there's a chunk of the city pissed off at this hire.

Kaddy, it should be noted, is a former police officer, and surely his vote was well received by his former colleagues. But Kaddy doesn't work for the police officers. He works for the people of Ward 3, and the entire city second. Maybe this vote would have been just mildly interesting if it wasn't for some rumors that Kaddy has pulled a move or two recently to try to cut off a potential Wong plan at the pass (and, no, I'm not offering details, yet).

Maybe this is all just bad math: Donnelly supporter + outspoken Bozicas fan + rumor mill + holding ground on a vote = Kaddy-Wong feud. Or maybe this is the first sign that not all 11 councilors are on the same page with mayor, and may not be totally willing to play ball. We'll probably get a better answer to that question during budget season, which is just weeks away.

One thing about Kaddy's vote is for sure: A unanimous vote could have put an end to the hometown/outsider battle that turned the chief's search ugly (although the resulting pick is solid). Instead, Kaddy's vote is a reminder not just that those divisions were there, they probably aren't going away.

Welcome to Fitchburg, Robert DeMoura. And welcome to Fitchburg politics, Lisa Wong.

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.