« All eyes are on Nangle's next move | Main | The votes tell story: It's Mayor Caulfield »

November 14, 2007

Why they are the people's choice

The performance of the two top vote-getters in last week's City Council election, No. 1 Rita Mercier and No. 2 Edward "Bud" Caulfield, should not have come as any surprise.

Both are constituent-first councilors, replying to the concerns of others at the drop of an Owl Diner pancake.

Still, the Mercier-Caulfield showing was remarkable. Voters responded to them despite a yearlong effort by the council majority -- the so-called six pro-Lynchers -- to paint them and Councilor Armand Mercier as obstructionists to progress, simply because they were viewed as supporters of former City Manager John F. Cox and weren't in total lockstep with Cox's successor, City Manager Bernie Lynch.

The propaganda continued when challengers Alan Kazanjian and Mike Lenzi entered the council race. The pro-Lynchers questioned their motives for running, since they too had longstanding friendships with Cox.

The strategy backfired.

With Armand Mercier placing fifth, the "obstructionists" finished Nos. 1-2-4 (Kazanjian)- 5 and 8 (Lenzi), securing five of nine council seats.
The pro-Lynchers finished Nos. 3 (Mayor Bill Martin), 6 (Kevin Broderick), 7 (Rodney Elliott), 9 (Jim Milinazzo) and 11 (Joe Mendonca). Mendonca lost his seat.

The final rankings say it all: Lowellians rejected the pro-Lynchers' "we are the good guys" and "they are the bad guys" rhetoric.

So why did four of the five pro-Lynchers survive the election?

Because, at heart, they are quality people too. They have a lot to offer a city that faces extraordinary challenges over the next two years and beyond.

Still the message is clear: Lowellians want both sides in this political power struggle to knock it off.

Manager Lynch has to do his part to foster unity. And that's why I believe, at this point, Caulfield is a better candidate for mayor than is Elliott.

In Caulfield, Lynch has an ambassador who can communicate with both Merciers, Kazanjian and Lenzi. If Caulfield and Lynch find harmony, so will the rest.

Elliott, though, remains a chameleon. He inhaled Lynch's ether about "professional" government, as if the prior City Hall administration had anything but Lowell's best interests at heart. On election eve, at an East End Club candidates' forum, Elliott had the temerity to read a misguided poem denigrating the Cox administration and his endorsed candidates. It hit bottom like an anchor, as well it should. Is this the councilor to unite the city?

Elliott might make a good mayor someday, but not for the next two years. Caulfield has vowed to smooth relations, and he is credible in that regard.

Which brings me to my second point as to why Rita Mercier and Bud Caulfield remain the people's choices. Back in September, they backed a motion calling on Lynch to publicly release the Stoklosa School report. The motion failed 7-2, with Armand Mercier joining Eileen Donoghue, Broderick, Elliott, Martin and Mendonca to suppress a public report that cost taxpayers $9,000.

Lynch has used a new legal exemption -- "attorney-client privilege" -- to shroud the report in mystery for 11 months. He says the report is the basis for a pending lawsuit against DRA Associates, the Stoklosa School's architect, and its release would weaken the city's legal position to recover costs.

Since September, O'Connor has told Sun reporters that a lawsuit was "imminent," just like Lynch said way back in March.

The stonewalling, in my view, was conceived to keep the report hidden from the public before the city election. Why? Because the financial dirt certain councilors were hoping to dig up on former City Manager Cox never materialized yet they wanted to keep the rumors of impropriety alive.

According to sources, the report says there was a lack of oversight on the city's part but no financial hanky-panky.

The shame of this entire episode is that Lynch could have released a summary putting all the rumors to rest without damaging a lawsuit against DRA. He didn't. Why?

Now Lynch and the City Council have the Public Records Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- as well as The Sun -- breathing down their necks.

Alan N. Cote, the state's supervisor of records, wants to examine the Stoklosa report. In a Nov. 5 letter to Lynch, Cote writes: "As privilege claimant, you bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the City possesses a valid (attorney-client) privilege ... As emphasized by the Supreme Judicial Court in the Suffolk decision, you will be required to produce a detailed index to support your claim of privilege."

Cote doesn't stop there. He requests Lynch to submit all "responsive records" for an "in camera review" to his One Ashburton Place office in Boston.

So what is the city's response to Cote's letter? When asked by a Sun reporter, Lynch deferred questions to O'Connor who, in turn, said she had not received the letter yet. Typical.

The solicitor also told the reporter that a lawsuit was imminent. This time she might be right. The city election is over.

Jim Campanini, editor of The Sun, can be reached at jcampanini@lowellsun.com.

Posted by Admin at November 14, 2007 2:30 PM

Comments

Posted by: Mike at November 15, 2007 12:34 PM