Vanna Howard your next State Senator: Many “political experts” and guys like me thought Rodney Elliott would stay close in Lowell but win in Dracut, Tyngsboro and Dunstable. I thought Pepperell would be a 60%/40% split for Vanna, giving Rodney the win.

I WAS WRONG!

Vanna got her people out, worked tirelessly in the towns and carried every community except Dracut. Whether you like or dislike her, on a cold day in February, she had many supporters at the polls or on the phone getting her voters out to cast their ballots. While I like both Sam Meas and Joe Espinola, I can’t see them doing any better in 30-days than Rodney did in three months.

Congratulations future Senator Howard!

Meas gets the Signatures: Republican Senate candidate Sam Meas surprised a lot of people by running a write-in campaign to even get on the March ballot. The fact that he was able to accomplish this by spending only $3,888.10 in the five communities is surprising.

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY: The State Office of Campaign and Political Finance shows that as of their January 31^st filing, winner Vanna Howard spent $73,990.99 while Rodney Elliott spent $41,705.86 for a job that has a base salary of $70,537 per year

What did Councilor McDonough do? During this past Tuesday night’s City Council Meeting, the first term Councilor, instead of speaking from his seat, got up and went to the podium where residents speak. There, he identified himself as citizen Sean McDonough to reprimand his fellow councilors about the home rule petition to force a joint facilities department.

He did not “recuse” himself from the council seat. He just got up and walked over to the microphone.

Fellow Councilor John Descoteaux seemed very agitated about this and asked the city solicitor if this was allowed.

The response from the solicitor surprised me when he said that Councilor McDonough might be in violation of  MA General Law – Part IV, Title I, Chapter 268A, Section 19, which mainly highlights Financial conflict of interest. It reads:

Section 19: Municipal employees, relatives or associates; financial interest in particular matter

Section 19. (a) Except as permitted by paragraph (b), a municipal employee who participates as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he, his immediate family or partner, a business organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years, or both.

(b) It shall not be a violation of this section (1) if the municipal employee first advises the official responsible for appointment to his position of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and makes full disclosure of such financial interest, and receives in advance a written determination made by that official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee, or (2) if, in the case of an elected municipal official making demand bank deposits of municipal funds, said official first files, with the clerk of the city or town, a statement making full disclosure of such financial interest, or (3) if the particular matter involves a determination of general policy and the interest of the municipal employee or members of his immediate family is shared with a substantial segment of the population of the municipality.

So, I had to think in the widest possible term, what the financial conflict could possibly be?

He and his wife are teachers, not custodians. This issue isn’t ONLY affecting the High School, but the entire district.

Then it dawned on me that he is a member of the United Teachers of Lowell Union, which also represents the custodians. Since it could affect the union’s membership (dues) even though it is a separate contract, it’s under the same UTL umbrella.

I think it’s a stretch, but that’s the best I could come up with.

There is nothing I could find in Robert’s Rules of Order or in the Lowell City Council Rules/Ordinance that says talking as a citizen isn’t allowed or requires a councilor to recues him or herself. But this is Lowell and the motto is “We’ve Always Done It This Way,” so when someone does something that isn’t usual, everyone gets upset.

Net School Spending Numbers: The Governor’s budget shows the following for what the Lowell School Department could get in Chapter 70 funding and what the City is supposed to pay for their required Net School Spending:

2027 Lowell #students 16,778. Chapter 70 funding $275,966,413. City’s Net School spending requirement $73,085,908. Total Required School spending $349,052,321.

2026 Students 16,836. City’s Net School spending requirement $68,956,678.

58 less students, $4,129.230 more in Cities Net School Spending requirement.

$14,507,299 increase in Chapter 70 funding 2027 budget.

The High School project isn’t eligible to count against Net School Spending. So, when the city is required to pay almost $69,000 and gives ONLY $10,000 in cash, that’s why the School Superintendent and department might be upset.

Clean up on Custodial Oversight: Time for the School Committee to make a motion and take a stand to CLEARLY define custodial responsibilities, and more importantly, to clearly identify that the Facility Director and Assistant Director have the ability to discipline.

Under the Education Reform Act of 1993, principals were given the authority to hire, promote and discipline employees in order to further two of the act’s main objectives: improving school performance and accountability. That included custodians.

A 2018 Session law that went into effect on August 3 removes the managerial authority of school principals in the promotion and discipline of custodial, maintenance, cafeteria and other non-teaching school employees.

Session Law – Acts of 2018 Chapter 160

The new law retains the principal’s hiring authority for these employees, but requires that promotions and disciplinary decisions be made in accordance with collective bargaining agreements.

The Custodians contract has the following articles:

ARTICLE XVIII
Evaluations
The building Principal is responsible for the final evaluation of all custodial personnel assigned to the building. The Senior Custodian and the Supervisor of custodians shall be contributing Evaluators.

ARTICLE XXXIII
Building Area Assignments
Written work assignments shall be provided to the Principal or Assistant Principal of each school building at the beginning of each school year by the Senior Custodian or the custodian in charge of each building. The assignments shall set forth the areas and/or rooms of each building and a designation of the custodian responsible for each such area  and/or room.

It is further understood and agreed that the Senior Custodian or custodian in charge of each building shall continue to have authority for the assignment of the areas and/or rooms to the custodians in his/her building, having due regard for effective maintenance and the educational program in that building in making such assignments. The written work assignments shall be updated by the Senior Custodian or custodian in charge from time to time to reflect any changes in the work assignments of each custodian.

The principal, as head of the building, will review with the Senior Custodian all work area assignments to effectively maintain the building.

Custodial Supervision:
1. The building Principal supervises all custodians in the building.
2. The Senior Custodian supervises the junior custodians in the building. Senior Custodians are responsible under direction of the building Principals.

Since we have a Facility’s Director and Asst. Director, in my view they would be the “custodian in charge” and should be able to assign work areas and inspect to make sure that said work was properly done.

The School Committee’s Policy Manual states:

File: EC – BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS MANAGEMENT – The Assistant Superintendent of Business, with the supervisor of custodians, will establish such procedures and employ such means as may be necessary to provide accurate information in regard to the nature, condition, location, and value of all property in the custody of the school department; to safeguard the property against loss, damage, or undue depreciation; to recover and restore to usefulness any property that may be lost, stolen or damaged; and to do all things necessary to ensure the proper maintenance, cleanliness, and safekeeping of school property.

Within the separate schools, the building administrator will be responsible for proper care, maintenance, and cleanliness of buildings, equipment, and grounds.

LEGAL REF.: M.G.L. 71:68

It appears in my view that not only does the Facility Director and Asst. Director have the duty to set exact schedules for each building, but since the 2018 Session Law, the same people should be in charge of being able to discipline custodians.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on podcasts, columns or radio, but if I were a School Committee member, I would file a motion to get a legal ruling to make sure that the Facilities Director /Asst. Director have the rights and responsibilities that I believe they do.