Memorial Day

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country. The first large observance was held that year at Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:

"The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit . . . "

Since that time, the observance of what we now call Memorial Day has morphed into more of a mark in time establishing the beginning of summer, a day for family barbecues, and yet another long holiday weekend.

Take a few moments this Memorial Day to offer a prayer for those who have made the "ultimate sacrifice" so that we may maintain the freedoms we enjoy every day. We are a country at war. As of May 27, 2005, 1652 American soldiers have been killed in the war in Iraq. Regardless of your feelings about the war, Memorial Day is a time to honor their service and the service of those who have gone before them.

UPDATE: Legacy.com has set up a moving tribute page to honor service members who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also offer links to other memorial sites

Is there Any Doubt?

No. There is no doubt about where the majority of the Board of Aldermen stand...and it's with our indicted Superintendent, Fred Foresteire. The previously mentioned "hot potato of responsibility" has been firmly flung into committee. Clinging to that shopworn phrase, "innocent until proven guilty", the Board had absolutely no problem giving the Superintendent the benefit of the doubt, while attacking the mayor for issues contained in a fraction of an 87 page audit. Evidently, the State Auditor's report didn't contain enough evidence of the Superintendent's gross mismanagement - but the Board found plenty to complain about with the mayor. Not one mention of hiring uncertified teachers, flagrant overspending, faking bids and bid splitting. None of that is important enough for the majority of the Board....no, they now want their own audit of city operations. Why? Because Fred wants it - that's why. Interestingly enough, even the Everett Independent, a paper that has been more than fair to the superintendent, thought that the credibility of the Board of Alderman would have been furthered had they actually asked any questions pertaining to the school department's problems.

So why would these men do Fred's bidding? Is it the perception of power that he allegedly holds? Is he really the key to mayoral ambitions or is that just another "fake out" by Fred? After all, the superintendent has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for years....perhaps his "power" is really only smoke and mirrors. The money he spent on advertising has been exposed to the public, and everyone knows it was special education money that he used. Is a candidate really going to risk taking Fred's money or his advertising "assistance?"

Pay special attention to the upcoming political ads. Advertisements that have appeared courtesy of Fred's PR hatchet man, John Cook Dowd, are imminently recognizable. It will be interesting to see how many upcoming candidate advertisements follow the same format.

The Hot Potato Called Responsibility

It's been a difficult couple of weeks since the State Auditor's Report came out indicating serious fiscal mismanagement issues in the School Department and the need for tighter controls in various departments at City Hall. It's been nearly two weeks of finger-pointing, butt covering, blame-placing, name calling and grandstanding. What it has not been is a couple of weeks where grown ups with real responsibilities have been willing to stand up and be accountable for their actions -- or lack of actions, and the biggest offender of this unwillingness to take responsibility are the nine sitting members of the Everett School Committee.

There has been a lot of talk about how the responsibility for what has happened lies to some degree with the Ragucci administration. While there are some "control" issues that have been resolved, most notably with the retirement of Donald Andrew, our former city auditor, the fact of the matter is -- the School Education Reform Act of 1993 put the responsibility for the management of the school district with the Superintendent and the responsibility for the management of the Superintendent with the School Committee. The well-rehearsed presentation by the School Committee on Monday evening, May 16 only served to reinforce the accepted popular belief that the School Committee will rally around the Superintendent no matter what -- because they have been co-opted into Kool Aid drinking sycophants who refuse to stand up and do what's right. Now they are looking to pass responsibility for the management of the school maintenance program over to the City -- as if saying, "do it yourself if you think you can do better" completely absolves them of the mess that they made in the first place.

The Mayor and the Common Council were absolutely correct in calling for the Superintendent and Mrs. DeFeo to be suspended. That subject will come before the Board of Aldermen tonight, and it will be interesting to see whether any of these gentlemen will step up and support the recommendation. Everyone understands that the recommendation is just that – a recommendation. Again – only the School Committee can make the decision to suspend the Superintendent and the Maintenance Director. They will not, however, do that without some pressure from many sides.

The Board of Aldermen have also placed a resolution on the calendar to request that representatives of the Administration and the School Committee attend a joint Finance Committee meeting to discuss what controls are being put in place ensure that this type of fiscal mismanagement does not continue. It will be interesting to see whether the Board will use this as a way to sidestep the question of Mr. Foresteire and Mrs. DeFeo’s continued employment with the City. These are two separate issues – and it is difficult to understand how the city can overcome the fiscal mismanagement of the School Department when those most culpable for it continue to receive a paycheck from the City.

Yes, responsibility can be quite a hot potato. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to cool it down before someone is willing to take it.

Are You Angry Yet?

The State Auditor's Report of the School Department was published last Wednesday. As we said in our previous column, the news is not good. This report is 87 pages of bad, and while a minor part of the problem is the need for better city controls, the bulk of the misdeeds fall squarely on the shoulders of the School Department, the Superintendent and the School Committee. Millions of dollars have been misspent, inaccurate information has been reported to the Department of Education and the Department of Reveneue, uncertified teachers are working in classrooms being paid at the same rate as certified teachers, money has been hidden in thirteen different accounts under the city tax ID at the Eagle Bank for various groups, some private and, as we reported here several weeks ago, money that should have been used for educational services through Shore Collaborative was used for everything from special teacher dinners to newspaper advertising.

Are you angry yet?

Some parents are and weren't afraid to say so when speaking last week with a Boston Globe reporter.

But are we angry enough to finally take a stand? Are we angry enough to say "something's gotta give" -- to say it loudly and publicly? Are we angry enough to demand that the School Committee finally, and firmly, do they job they were elected to do and insist that the Superintendent step aside?

If the School Committee is not willing to do their job, are we angry enough to demand that the City Council do something about? Fourteen months ago, the Mayor stood up and publicly called for the Superintendent to step down. Only two members of the City Council stood with him. The remaining 23 members were suddenly struck mute. Are we angy enough to demand that they finally take a stand?

Are you that angry yet?

We stated in the close of our previous column that it is up to us, as voters, to hold all parties accountable. Frankly, we don't have any faith that the School Committee will do the right thing. We don't have any faith that the School Committee will stand up and take responsibility for the audit and the part that they've played in the outcome. We don't have any faith that the Superintendent can get out of the way of his own ego long enough to accept responsibility for his actions, either. We have only slightly more faith that the City Council will take a stand and work to correct the situation.

We do have faith in our community to stand up and take back the School System.

Are you that angry yet? Are you angry enough to attend Monday evening's School Committee meeting and demand that your voices be heard? Are you angry enough to stare down the Superintendent when he insists that they've done nothing wrong. Are you angry enough to insist that the members of the School Committee do their jobs as our representatives? And are you angry enough to then march to City Hall and demand the same of City Government?

You have your chance on Monday evening, May 16. The School Committee will meet at 7:00 p.m. in the High School Library. The Common Council will be at 8:00 p.m. at City Hall.

The State Auditor's Report--A Bad Day in the City

The long-awaited report of the state audit of the School Department is out -- and the news is not good. It shows a pattern of fiscal mismanagement and malfeasance by the Superintendent and some employees of the school department, as well as a lack of oversight by the School Committee that has allowed the Superintendent and the School Department to spend millions of dollars on questionable expenditures without going through the channels required by state and municipal finance law. Among the items cited in the report are bid-splitting and bid-rigging practices that allowed the School Department to circumvent the city's procurement procedures, the misuse of MCAS and Shore Collaborative funds for purposes (including homecoming and football equipment) other than those for which they were intended, having unlicensed teachers on the payroll, the misuse of $830K in federal grant money designated to add teachers to the payroll, improper teacher layoffs, and "flawed budgetary practices" resulting in $1.2 million in overspending.

It would be easy for some people -- including us -- to gloat, to say "we told you so." That's not how we feel. This is a dark day for our city. The findings in this report are nothing to be smug or satisfied about -- but they are something to be angry about. The report's findings demonstrate not only a misuse of public funds -- it shows a disregard for the public trust. It is time for the School Committee to stand up and address these issues, to do the job they were elected to do, and take steps to rebuild the public trust in the quality of our School Department. It is time for the School Committee and the Superintendent to be a real example for our children -- to stand up and take responsibility for what they've done and take the steps necessary -- including working within the system and the law -- to ensure that this type of abuse of power never happens again. It is time for the whole of City Government to open their eyes and be willing to address the rampant School Department overspending that has gone unchecked for many years.

The temptation, of course, will be for this issue to be used as yet another pawn in the never-ending chess game that Everett politics seems to be. It is up to us, as voters, not to let that happen. It is up to us to hold all parties accountable and disperse the dark cloud that hangs over our city today. We owe it to ourselves, our children and the future of our City to make this right.

UPDATE: Read the Audit Report here.

The Vote

After the theatrics of Thursday night, who would have believed it? On Monday night, the vote to move forward on the high school, despite the increased costs, was a resoundingly unanimous 7-0 vote. Even Alderman Michael Marchese, a long time opponent of the high school being built on the Terraces, voted in favor of the additional appropriation, acknowledging that the 57 million dollars in state reimbursements was difficult to turn down, regardless of his feelings about the location of the school.

This is not to suggest that the Aldermen gave the mayor a “speedy pass" -- nor that they should have. Numerous questions were asked of the mayor, and Alderman Van Campen expressed his concern that raising the bond authorization to $82 million would be giving the administration a credit card to spend to the limit. Katherine Craven, the Executive Director of the School Building Authority quickly put those fears to rest, explaining that the amount borrowed will be reduced by the amount provided by the state, which in this case is $57 million, leaving about $24.5 million to be financed. When the Aldermen questioned whether the city could actually afford to build the high school, while at the same time undertake other capital projects, the mayor conceded that the budgets will be tight, but that capital planning for future projects were was already in place.

The meeting Monday evening was also not without its grandstanding, but the resounding message was this -- it was time for the City Council and the Administration to work together to see the building of a new high school become a reality. For too long it's been about wounded egos -- who didn't invite whom to the dance -- but in the end it was good to see political adversaries come together for the betterment of the community and the future of our children.

The groundbreaking ceremony is expected to be held some time next week.

High School Hijinks--A Commentary

Well, Round One (or is it round 20?) of the Battle for the New High School took place last Thursday night, with the decision going to the High School -- at least for now. The next round plays out Monday night (5/9), and this will prove to be the "do or die" match.

On one side is the Mayor, his financial team, and four members of the Board of Aldermen who are in favor of appropriating an additional $22 million to complete the project. As previously reported, the Mayor presented the financials to a Joint Convention of the City Council last Thursday evening and pointed out the ramifications of the additional costs, which are not insignificant, but do not appear to be insurmountable, given the 84% reimbursement we can expect from the State through the School Building Assistance program.

On the other side you have three members of the Board of Aldermen who seem opposed to the additional appropriation -- but the opposition coming from at least two of them seems more politically than fiscally motivated.

First is Alderman Michael Marchese. Marchese has always opposed the building of the new high school on The Terraces, so his opposition to an additional appropriation should not surprise anyone. In fact, it would be hypocrisy for him to vote any other way.

Alderman DeMaria and Alderman Van Campen, however, are another story.

Alderman Van Campen behaved in his usual "nobody tells me nothin' " manner -- claiming he hadn't been informed in enough detail prior to the meeting of the particulars of the additional appropriation and accusing the Mayor of dropping the ball in providing the information. What Van Campen would've liked to leave out of that equation is that there was a formal meeting of the Finance Committee, and the Mayor also had two informal meetings in his office with the Finance Committee in which the particulars were discussed -- and Van Campen missed one of those meetings. Van Campen chastised the Mayor, claiming it was incumbent upon him to make sure that those who missed the meeting received the information. This makes one wonder -- when Mr. Van Campen was in law school and had to miss a class, did he expect the professor to chase him down to make sure he had the details of the lecture, or was he expected to "get the notes from a classmate"? This is not the first time that Van Campen has claimed that he didn't have enough information to make a decision -- nor is it the first time that his own lack of follow up was part of the reason that he didn't have the information. Why does Alderman Van Campen think he's entitled to be spoon fed every detail and that he has no obligation to do a little of his own research? Not only had Van Campen not taken the time to follow up on the meeting that he missed, he now wants to invest an additional $30,000 to hire "outside consultants" to go over the numbers because he has so little faith in the information provided by the City's own financial experts -- including an outside financial advisor who has been doing work for the city for 25 years. Does Van Campen believe that Ragucci has such a Svengali-like hold on these people that they would risk their professional and personal reputations just to make him happy?

But the greatest example of political arrogance came in the form of Alderman DeMaria, who had nothing to add to the conversation but insults -- both personal and political. He and the Mayor exchanged barbs back and forth -- and in truth, the Mayor allowed DeMaria to bait him on a couple of occasions, which also added nothing to the conversation -- but in the end DeMaria looked like all he was interested in doing was making the Mayor and the members of his administration look bad. Some seem to believe that DeMaria was "standing up for what's right." Is it right to waste time talking about rehabbing the old high school -- at a cost of at least $40 million -- none of which is reimbursible by the State? Is it right to continue to delay a project because you have some personal animosity toward the Mayor and one of your "good buddies" happens to be running against him? Is it right to stand up and insult the intelligence and commitment of city employees -- not to mention Stephen Sachetta, who donates his time to the School Building Commission -- simply because they are friends of the Mayor? There was a time that DeMaria was a supporter and a friend of the Mayor -- at least that's what he claimed. Well -- as the old saying goes -- "with friends like that, who needs enemies"?

Questioning the additional appropriation and how it will affect the City is certainly legitimate. That's what our representatives should do. Using the high school issue as a pawn in a political chess game, however, is not acceptable -- and it appears that at least two of the members of the Board are doing exactly that. Let's hope that they've done all of their homework between Thursday and Monday night, that they have all their facts together, that they'll come to the meeting and have their questions answered, and then vote to do the ultimate right thing -- move forward with the construction of the new high school.

The High School Vote -- Round One

Well, it was a hot time in the old town on Thursday night. Mayor Ragucci called a joint convention, complete with a special meeting of the Common Council, to add an additional $22M to the original appropriation slated for building a new high school. Assembled were a number of financial professionals, including an advisor from the city’s bonding company, a consultant providing city “growth” predictions, as well as the budget director, the auditor and the assessor, former Speaker of the House George Keverian. Also in the mix was an officer from RF Walsh, the company managing the high school project. Missing from the meeting were Common Council President Wayne Matewsky and Councilors Hickey, McKinnon and Napolitano.

The meeting started well enough. The mayor explained that the Department of Revenue had advised him on Tuesday morning that he would need the authorization of city government to go forward with the project. Although the State School Building Authority originally didn’t think that was necessary, provided that the total amount due from the city was available in the original appropriation, the City Solicitor felt it was prudent to contact the DOR and abide by their ruling. While the city wouldn’t actually have to borrow $82 million, due to the increase in reimbursement from the state to nearly 84%, the appropriation had to reflect the total. While the appropriation would be increasing by over $22 million, the loan would cover the 16% that the city would have to match with the 84% expected from the state, as well as a portion of the increase in costs. The payment each year for the school would be $1.7 M, based on a loan amount of $24.5M. The affordability of the plan rests on the stabilization fund, which is expected to total $13 million by 2008, due to the sale of the City Yards and the sale of the high school.

A number of members expressed their displeasure at having to vote in such a short time frame, not to mention that they were being asked to vote “after the fact,” given that Suffolk had already broken ground at the high school. Fireworks erupted between Alderman DeMaria and the mayor, who objected to Mr. DeMaria’s interruption of a Councilman Sal DiDomenico during his statement; this was unfortunate and neither one of them looked better for it. Alderman Marchese, long an opponent of the high school project, stayed focused on the financials, and looked at the total interest of project. Most of us, however, wouldn’t borrow a dime to buy our own homes if we stayed focused on the interest of a 30-year mortgage. Alderman Van Campen and Alderman DeMaria wanted $30,000 to bring in an outside consultant to help them make their decision. The mayor objected to spending the extra money, stating that they could avail themselves of the financial professionals in the city. A number of councilors spoke on the project, most notably Councilor Chuck DiPerri, who asked whether the increase in appropriation was more of a technical issue as opposed to a financial one, provided that the funds currently on tap for the project were already in place with the original appropriation. Councilor Cardello was worried about finances and asked several tough questions of the mayor. Councilor Gover challenged the mayor to observe the same discipline that he asked of the councilors, and asked him what he would do should rising costs threaten the stability of the project or the city‘s finances. Councilors Smith, Cardello, King, Sierra, along with Aldermen Nuzzo and Ragucci all spoke favorably of the project, to the applause of many in the audience, although Councilor Sierra expressed his concerns about the level of “hate’ and “disrespect” that has been dividing city government and hoped that everyone would begin to work together. Councilor Cardello seconded that emotion. Councilor Hicks brought up the unfortunate problems with the other schools and hoped that history would not repeat itself. The mayor pointed out that the city had a new contractor in place, and was confident that the high school project would be successful. Alderman DeMaria requested the cost of rehabbing the old high school for the next meeting. The mayor invited all members of city government to call his office or department heads between Thursday and Monday, and that he was willing to meet with any of them - with the exception of Sunday, which is Mother’s Day.

The matter was referred favorably to the Common Council for a special meeting that followed the joint convention. A unanimous 14-0 vote preserved the high school project for this week. It remains to be seen how the Board of Aldermen will vote, given the contentious relationship the Board has with the mayor.

Rigid Rules Defy Common Sense

It's difficult to understand why a high school teacher would insist that a young man hang up on his mother while she was calling from Iraq, where she is stationed. One would like to think that a teacher, more than anyone, would have been sensitive to the circumstances, despite the rules. Yet, that didn’t happen...and the news of this young man’s ten-day suspension has been broadcast all over the country, and likely the world.

One can understand why there are rules against cell phone use in school. Cell phones are disruptive in the hands of adults - never mind the all-day gabfest that would ensue if there were no restrictions on teenagers during school hours.

What is not understandable is the teacher’s response. Apart from the fact that this young man is living with a guardian while his mother is serving her country, which is difficult enough, the time zone in Iraq is eight hours ahead of U.S. Eastern time. The teacher also had to know that this woman isn’t exactly getting coffee breaks, so it would be difficult for her to call during her working hours, which would occur roughly as her son would be waking up. The solution for this family would be to try to connect at lunch time, which would be 8:00 P.M. in Iraq. Perhaps this might not have gone so badly had the young man informed the school in advance, but teenagers tend to live in the moment. His anger and belligerence resulted in a ten day suspension, the same suspension meted out to major league baseball players who use steroids. Silly? I think so, but let's hope it sparks some commonsense response to the challenge of families trying to stay connected during a time of war. Special accommodations need to be made. It’s unfortunate that this young man has to pay the price for his school’s lack of planning

Happy Mother's Day

Today is Mother’s Day. For today, let’s not discuss the high school vote, Charter reform, the superintendent’s issues, or the municipal election. It’s Mother’s Day! I know it doesn’t feel like Mother’s Day; it is cold and dreary - and not sunny at all, but today we pay tribute to love, wisdom and sacrifice of the women in our lives who either are our mothers, or the women by virtue of marriage, kinship or affection, became our mothers. These “women of substance” made us who we are. Like it or not, their wit and ways are knit into the very essence of our souls. Who amongst us hasn’t stopped and said, “Oh my God, I sound like my mother (grandmother, aunt, etc.)! We love them - and they love(d) us. We are blessed by their devotion and strength in so many ways.
Feel free to post your thoughts about the special women in your life.
Happy Mother’s Day, all!
The Everett Mirror

Charter Reform Redux

Although Charter reform has been considered, reconsidered and voted on in the past, city government is angling to take it up again. Sponsored by several members of the Board of Alderman, and Peter Napolitano, a member of the Common Council, the charter reform item will be taken up by the Common Council on Monday, May 2. Everett has a unique style of city government, a bicameral legislative body that includes the Board of Aldermen and the Common Council. Many assume that reforming Everett’s Charter will mean the end of the Common Council. In reality, it means abolishing the current bicameral form of government in favor of one representative branch, the structure of which remains to be determined. In addition, it also means that, whatever the final form the body should take, each seat would be subject to an election. Therefore, there is no guarantee that current members of the Common Council -- which seems to be the bone of contention with people favoring charter reform -- would lose their seats. The "cream" does not always rise to the top in politics.

“Streamlining” government and making it smaller is all the rage these days. It remains to be seen whether the council will embrace it, or leave it to a small band of signature gatherers to get charter reform on the ballot.