‘Mayor of resistance’ is harming Lowell….” picked up on a blogger’s post referencing language in the mostly defunct 1922 City Charter” (They ignored or forgot MA State Law CHAPT 43 which I posted)
School Committee’s Complaint which references similar points to the post in the above link.
Changing her Argument?
I like the City Solicitor but she is quickly back-peddling or changing her initial opinion that the MSBA dictates it’s the Council who makes the call to site a school. In light of the response from the MSBA which says it is strictly a local issues, that’s understandable.
That process is explained, in detail, on the MSBA website under the heading “Building With Us” where you can find a copy of the MSBA’s Feasibility Study Guidelines (“Guidelines”) under Module 3, Feasibility Study. The Guidelines advise that a “Preliminary Design Program … must be reviewed and approved … in accordance with … local approval procedures and practices [and that] Districts are encouraged to consult with their local counsel to ensure that all applicable requirements are satisfied.” (See Guidelines at Paragraph 3.1.7, Local Actions and Approval).
Please let me know if you require further assistance.
Brian P. Kelley
Associate General Counsel
Massachusetts School Building Authority
40 Broad Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Her new reply to the Sun was this is the way we did it for the Stoklosa and no one on the school committee complained.
To be clear YES THEY DID in 1999!
It was approved by the School Committee has part of Phrase III in 1997 but even in 1999 when it was first brought forward a School Committee member reminded the Councilor’s of the Law. I know it was before the creation of the MSBA and her career as Lead City Solicitor at City Hall ( she worked under Solicitor Tom Sweeney and was appointed by Cox to succeed him) but it shoots down her statement about using the Stoklosa for a reference. She was there but apparently didn’t know about that School Committee.
The Stokloska was approved by the School Committee has part of phrase III of the School Building program in 1997, it was brought forward in 1999 but then City Manager Brian Martin suggested delaying it and the School Committee was indeed concerned.
This Solicitor wasn’t the Dept. Head for that. She was around for the Acre Revitalization started by Brian Martin and continued under the City Manager who promoted her John Cox, who decided to go ahead with the School Building Program after Brian Martin then City Manager suggested delaying it.
The School was an important part of the Acre Redevelopment project and the City needed it to show how important revitalizing to that area was. Then Acting Supt. Helen Flanagan lobbied for that site saying it was the best space available because of its size. Former Manager then School Committee member Bill Taupier spoke in support of it also.
Even the Loan Order when it was put back on the table for Revision by the City points out the original approval in 1999. Funding for the Stoklosa was approved in 1999 so how could she claim the Stokloska as an example? The City knew nothing of Article 97 yet she is going to claim she can find facts and documents from 1999?
She must have also “forgotten” the settlement with the Architects over the Stoklosa and the ugliness over missing classrooms. Interesting she brings up a disaster of a building built under a former State Rep. turned City Manager.
Lowell had been withholding payment of $187,000 owed to Drummey Rosane Anderson for work performed under the architect’s original contract signed in March 1999.
Okay for City to Sue a School Committee but not the other way around?
The Solicitor should know first hand, just because the city operated in one way once that it can be changed by a court challenge. After all it was her office who represented the City of Lowell when the City sued the Greater Lowell Tech School Committee and member towns over how it was represented on the Board and how members were elected that caused the election process to change even though Lowell had agreed to the formation many many years ago.
Sometimes it’s good to be Childlike sometimes it’s not!
Since I agree with the School Committee’s decision to seek a court judgement I must be one of those who are acting like a Petulant Child. That is what a Cawley Candidate for School Committee called the current School Committee when speaking to the ultimate Petulant Child talk show host Ted Panos. Not wanting to understand your rights and responsibilities for an office your seeking is interesting, playing up to a talk show host in hopes of gaining support is head scratching.
Pot meet Kettle
Teddy has been the ultimate petulant child, in no way shape or form has he wanted anything but his own way. He also been the lead Nimby in get the High School out of my back yard. He wants new housing at the current LHS so their guest will stay in his new hotel. During this discussion he has shown he doesn’t care about facts to try and gain support for his view (Lowell is the ONLY community that doesn’t bus it’s high school students ! NOT TRUE) or care about the rights and responsibilities of a School Committeeman.
I understand Teddy has 20 hours a week to fill in Morning Drive and facts sometimes get in the way of good radio (He and I were talking about this at the 99 on Lakeview Ave in Dracut just last week..wink wink) and he has successfully generated many many hours of phone calls and discussion, even getting referenced on the Council floor. He is good at stirring the pot with unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo, a good trait if you’re a talk show host. Not good if your a candidate just following his lead.
Defending the Rights and Responsibilities of a School Committee Member!
I agree this and the past School Committee should have known the facts and their rights long before I posted the question in June but better late than never. I won’t apologize for defending the rights and responsibilities of an office I am trying to obtain nor for the timing. If the Councilor’s hadn’t voted to declare an open school as surplus I may have stayed has clueless as the current Councilor’s or School Committee members. I assumed a City Manager who was a lawyer and former State Rep., who has a solid legal team at his disposal would know the correct process and procedures.
If the Court upholds the City and I’ve read it wrong then I’m wrong and many won’t let me forget. Believe me it won’t be the first time! The question needed to be asked and answered by a Judge not a lawyer who works for the City and it seemed many wanted to ignore the MSBA Lawyer who was clear in responding to me that it is a local issue on who has the right to site the school. No where in MA. State Law, The City Charter or the City Ordinances does it clearly define that duty lies with the City Council. State Law and the Charter say it’s the School Committee and Manager.
The Council role is funding. This ruling will clarify it once and for all.
Will Anger be turned?
If as I expect the Court rules in the School Committee’s favor, will the anger of the talk show host and others be turned onto the City Manager and City Solicitor for the incompetence shown in this process? They either didn’t understand the law (and both are lawyers), misunderstood the wording or purposely chose to let the City Council take the lead figuring that the former and present School Committee and BOTH the current and former Mayor showed no desire to look at the law or challenge them.
Will the anger of the Cawley supporters be taken out on Councilor’s for also not looking at the law? The same Councilor’s who voted to declare an open school as surplus property without once questioning if the School Committee had voted it was no longer needed for educational purpose? Or will “the blogger” aka School Committee candidate who actually looked at the law and posted the question become the target of wrath for not doing it sooner? Will the anger stay on the current School Committee who didn’t react until the Mayor read my post and reacted then instead of reacting sooner?