School Committee member Dave Conway was kind enough to call me back and give me a statement on today’s Sun story. If you think my typing skills are bad, try reading my shorthand notes. I apologize to Dave if I am not exact but the main message is clear.

Dave Conway:

In today’s Sun there is a story that alleges that a school committee member made comments regarding contract negotiations between the Lowell School Committee and the United Teacher’s of Lowell and the status of these talks.

I would like to publicly state that it was not me. Under no circumstances would I ever violate the Executive Session regulations and violate the trust of my peers and the process of these contract negotiations.

As a former member for many years of the United Teacher’s of Lowell I have a great deal of respect for both sides regarding these contract negotiations. The process is a difficult one for all parties involved and for someone to violate that trust and jeopardize the hard work put in by both sides is wrong and unfair to all concerned.

Both sides in these talks are doing their best to do what is right and reach a mutual agreement. For someone to violate these efforts is wrong and damages both parties.

Here is the latest from Election year Blogger and “Fiscal Watchdog” City Councilor Rodney Elliot on his Campaign/Blog

Cash Reconciliation: Where’s the ‘Beef’? Friday, October 14, 2011

The topic of the lack of reconciliation of the Treasurer’s cash book has been either overtly downplayed or simply not addressed on the local blogs – wonder why. The Newspaper has done a good job of defining the problem. I felt that I would provide the opportunity for people to comment on it here. (GN Note: SHOCKER – NO ONE HAS!)

Background: The Treasurer’s cash book has not been properly reconciled possibly going back to 1999. The Cash book is reconciled to both the balances in the City’s bank accounts and the general ledger. All three should agree each month. If there is a variance it is the job of the Treasurer, with the assistance of the Auditor, to determine what the variance is and resolve it.

There may be any number of transactions that could make up the variance such as: cashed checks that haven’t been “cleared” from the books, deposits that may have been posted wrong, or any number of other possibilities. You really don’t know for certain what the components of the variance are until you drill down to the actual transactions the old fashioned way and get to the bottom of it. It’s a time consuming and labor intensive project. But it’s critical to understanding and analyzing our overall financial picture.

When this issue was brought to the attention of the City Council we supported the Manager’s argument that resources needed to be directed into the Treasurer’s office to correct the problem. We were told by the Manager that the problem would be the focus of the newly hired Treasurer (Memo- Dated April 2010).

We received the Management letter prepared by our outside Audit Firm from the Manager on September 27, 2011 (16 months late). The letter itself dated is dated June 30, 2010. The letter covers activity for fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010). Upon reading the Management letter I was disheartened to learn that the problem had yet to be resolved and still a ‘material weakness’ on internal controls. The other concern that I had was why we were receiving it so late.

There is history of City Manager’s not keeping the Council apprised of important financial information that can be traced back several decades (and one time it took a Special Act to bail the City out). So I’d have to say I’m somewhat sensitive on that subject. . If my memory serves me right, a recent incident of this nature several years ago seemed to spur intense debate on line. The silence has been deafening and confusing.

I feel that transparency in government is critical. We need information shared with us. We can’t access this information on our own. We rely heavily on the Manager to keep us informed and when he does not, it is the Auditor’s responsibility to do so – and she did not. The Council, the Auditor and the Administration need to work as one cohesive unit. That cannot occur if one of the three is left feeling around in the dark for the light switch.

Why wasn’t this task completed sooner? If we can hire an outside audit firm (Melanson & Heath) and they can close the gap in 30 days why did it take so long to do it in the first place?

That question has yet to be answered.

I’ve emailed or Facebook messaged ALL th School Committee members NOT mentioned in the Sun article (or Connie Martin who posted herself) and talked with one candidate and emailed the other two for comments.

Here are the responses from John Leahy & Robert Gignac

John Leahy:
Hi Gerry, I am not the source.

As far as the story goes I thought it was right on target. I think that a three percent offer today is fair. I know that we should be working with the School unions to improve the district. Sometimes we need to invest in ourselves to improve. It should not always be about the percent of the raise, but whats going to make us a better school system. The Union president forgets that. I have three children in the public schools but as a parent you absolutely have to be involved. I wonder what changes would happen if the leadership had their own children in the Lowell Public Schools. There is a lot of good work that goes on day-to-day in our schools, but we need to be honest and ask, what changes should be made for our children and not ourselves.

John
__________________________________

Robert Gignac:

In regards to the article in todays Sun stating there was a “leak” from an anonymous School Committee Member is troubling. As an elected official you are put in a position to represent the people of Lowell, including teachers and the community as a whole. There was some language used that simply strengthens the unions position as feeling “disrespected”.

The comments also put all the other committee members in difficult positions as they are going to be targeted until the “leak” is revealed. The current negotiation process is meant to be extremely confidential. The fact that a committee member felt the desire to bash not only teachers but to also put the other members in defensive positions is unprofessional. Until the leak is revealed, I believe the public will display distrust towards many of the members, which is unfair to those that have not violated the trust of the public.

Thank you,
Robert Gignac

A School Committee member “Leaking information” Shocking ! well not so much.

The Sun article indicates Jim Leary wasn’t the source (to bad because he’s usually Paul Georges favorite target) and since as the Sun points out..Mayor James Milinazzo, who chairs the School Committee, cannot sit in on teacher-union negotiations because his wife is a teacher in the district that also pretty much rules him out. I’m ruling out John Leahy also since he can’t be in the room participating in contract talks either and is seeking a council seat. John comes from a strong political family and knows there is nothing to be gained from ticking off the teacher’s union.

Connie Martin has already said she isn’t the “source” and Jackie Doherty has been involved in negotiations in the past and knows better, plus Jackie doesn’t have a soft spot for the Lowell Sun. She wouldn’t give them anything.

Dave Conway has been on the other side of the table during his teaching career and Dave has a well-known soft spot for the Teacher’s Union and if they are close as Jim Leary indicates, Dave would never do anything to jeopardize that and would never call the Union “sharks”. Dave Conway would not want to risk violating anything so I’m ruling him out also.

hmmm…seems this isn’t the first negotiations that information may have been leaked….

Feb 10th 2010 /gerrynutterslowell.com/2011/02/10/minute-observations/

No one I spoke with would even acknowledge let alone respond to this question and I doubt very much I would get an honest answer from Mr. Gallagher or Ms. Laraba but “could” it be a possibility that Ms. Laraba might have worked closely with the Supt and her Atty, providing them with information on the tone and tenor of the contract talks among the committee? Is that why the Supt. announced she was leaving because she knew at best she would only get a 1 year offer, after the 3 year offer was pulled and a 2 year offer was ignored?

Was the Supt. upset with the idea of a 1 year offer? Did she make the choice to ‘do it to them before they did it to her ” and announce she was leaving, go to the paper to make the committee look bad as she thought they were making her look by offering nothing or at best a 1 year deal?

It seems to me and so far only me that Ms. Laraba may have been informing the Supt. or her Atty. of things before the committee as a whole did and is that why the Supt. announced she was leaving because she knew at best she would only get a 1 year offer, after the 3 year offer was pulled and a 2 year offer was ignored?

Just a coincidence I’m sure.

This is why we need people like Connie Martin serving on our School Committee! She answers the tough questions.

I suspect I may be asked this question by some at the City Council Forum so I’ll answer it here on Facebook first;

I was not the “source” for the Lowell Sun’s article today about the UTL/School Committee negotiations. Additionally, I can’t even guess which one of my colleagues could have possibly been willing to risk the legal action that can result from breaking the laws regarding Executive Session. I can only say that when a public official is only willing to speak under the cover of anonymity…well they, and the citizens they are charged with serving, should be seriously questioning their motives.