This is the gentleman who Lowell Just Hired as the New Treasurer.

Greg Labrecque’s Experience
Finance Director Town of Groveland
Government Administration industry
Currently holds this position

In the Sun’s story on Oct. 18th
Labrecque, who was also an audit supervisor in the state auditor’s office for 17 years before his time in Groveland, will start his new job Nov. 11. Labrecque will fill the position last held by David McGurl, who died in a car crash in August. Labrecque, who lives in Groveland, graduated in 1983 from Salem State College with a bachelor of science in business administration

Lynch said he chose Labrecque for the position because his municipal experience in Groveland, his work in the state auditor’s office and the strong recommendations he received from officials at credit-rating agencies. “We think he will be a very qualified, good fit for the office,” Lynch said

Look at our CFO Thomas Moses – Chief Financial Officer at City of Lowell

Chief Financial Officer City of Lowell
Government Agency; Government Administration industry
2006 – Present (5 years)

Chief Financial Officer City of Gloucester
Government Agency; Government Administration industry
2003 – 2006 (3 years)

Finance Director Town of Groveland
Government Administration industry
1999 – 2003 (4 years)

Chief Financial Officer City of Gloucester
Government Agency; Government Administration industry
1997 – 1999 (2 years)

Assistant Finance Director City of Cambridge
Government Agency; Government Administration industry
1992 – 1997 (5 years)

Ya think they may have crossed path’s before? Maybe even played golf together? They have been in the same business and field for many years and surprise they actually know each other!

Hey Rodney, who DID YOU KNOW THAT APPLIED and didnt get interviewed? This smells like the time the Manager didn’t appoint your co-worker to the Zoning Board. You attack the Manager’s character then.

Your going to attack and accuse the characters of men like Tom Moses and Greg A. Labrecque in public without any substantive proof of your cheap, unfounded and unjust allegations and expect the people of Lowell to elect you again?

You clearly crossed the path of not only decency but I believe the Plan E charter and I hope not only the voters hold you accountable but that Mr. Moses does everything possible to have the State fine , censure or whatever else they can do for your actions against this man’s character in a public forum.

You should be ashamed and embarrassed.

Update: Mr. Moses is CFO NOT one of the Asst. Managers,

If you missed Councilor Rodney Elliot’s Election year grandstanding at the beginning of the Council meeting you missed great theater and the self destruction of a candidate.

Rodney publicly accused the CFO Tom Moses of hiring his friend for City Treasurer over qualified Lowell people.

Apparently Rodney has a strong disregard to the Plan E form of Gov’t and to sections 103 and 107. Maybe he should spend some time reading these.

I hope Mr. Moses files a formal complaint against the Councilor with the State. What Rodney did to him tonight was clearly a personal attack against Management and he clearly violated section 107 below. To me this shows how desperate Rodney is feeling about the upcoming election. He is reaching and by doing so he violated the law and it’s on DVD for all to see.

Plan E General Laws (Secs. 93 to 108 inclusive)

Section 103. The city council shall appoint a city manager who shall be sworn to the faithful performance of his duties and who shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible for the administration of all departments, commissions, boards and officers of the city, whether established before its adoption of this plan or thereafter, except that of the city clerk, city auditor, any official appointed by the governor or any body elected by the voters of the city. He shall be appointed on the basis of his administrative and executive qualifications only, and need not be a resident of the city or commonwealth when appointed. He shall hold office during the pleasure of the city council and shall receive such compensation as it shall fix by ordinance. No member of the city council shall during his term of office be chosen as city manager, and no person who has within two years been elected to or served in any elective office in the city or in the county in which the city is located shall be chosen as city manager.

Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of, any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and upon final conviction thereof his office in the city council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.

Section 21. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares;

Okay so you can agree to go into Executive session but the bottom line is if you choose to pull a Jackie Doherty and leak to the press you can. There is NO PENALTY! Complain about Paul Georges all you want but according to Massachuette’s Law..it is NOT a CRIME and you and he are NOT breaking any Law by telling us all about Executive Session. Let the leaks run forth!

There is NO Law that says if you violate Executive Session than XXX happens. Zilch, Nada, Nothing.

So why do we allow Executive Sessions and why are our Elected officials allowed to decide when they want to keep a secret from the public and when they think it’s okay to blab and use the ruse of Executive session to do it?

The contract negotiations for Supt. Scott, sorry we can’t tell you, we have to ” review” (See redact items) them first, then vote to release them, after all this was in Executive session. Isn’t that what we heard when Supt. Chris Scott said she was leaving and we wanted to know what happened? It took weeks before the School Committee released that information. BECAUSE IT MADE THEM LOOK BAD!

Spin it forward to the Teacher’s Union Contract negotiations, I’m Jackie Doherty and I am frustrated with the Union President so I’ll go tell the Sun and nothing can or will happen to me. In fact I’ll probably gain support and use it to campaign for myself a day or two later in an open letter to the voters.

Why bother with this charade and why do we the voters allow this nonsense?

The next time a School Committee or City Council member or the City Solicitor tells us “I can’t comment it’s part of Executive Session” let’s remind them that it means NOTHING! Jackie Doherty has shown us that.

This morning on City Life City Councilor Joe Mendonca confirmed that, he told us that it is not a crime to speak about what happened in an Executive Session. That was confirmed to be true , when I consulted with a lawyer I know who claims there is nothing on the books that spell out a punishment. AT best MAYBE if fellow members were really upset they could send a letter to the Ethic commission or District Attorney and at best it may be identified as a Collective Bargaining infraction or unfair labor practice.

So why do we even bother having Executive session and why do we allow the Elected Officials to give us a no comment claiming that the information is privileged..it isn’t and there is NO PENALTY for telling us.

Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law is a tool designed to help in allowing transparency in government. It mandates public boards and commissions to conduct the public’s business in the open, it promotes transparency. Open government is good government.

In drafting the law the Legislature provided several exceptions. For example the ability to have privacy when discussing strategy in contract negotiations behind closed doors. It is permitted, since revealing the strategy publicly would undercut the municipality’s bargaining position. Similarly, closed sessions are permitted for discussions concerning litigation and sometimes certain financial strategy.

To ensure public access the law requires officials to release to the public the minutes of the meetings after the reason for secrecy has passed, such as when the contract has been signed or court action settled. The people have a right to know.

Leaking sensitive information from closed sessions effectively subverts the spirit and intention of that law and violates the publics best interest but since there is no punishment for violating the agreement, why bother to use Executive session at all?

School Committee member Jim Leary is up and getting ready to head out to work but took the time to respond to Paul Georges Letter in today’s Sun and on this Blog:

Paul did an excellent job educating his membership regarding health care costs. I have always given him credit for that because he deserved it. He did an excellent job! Nonetheless, he did not save $6 Million over four years, but rather reduced the health care increases, which have gone up and continue to increase every single year. We have laid-off his UTL membership and will continue to do so unless changes are made with the continued increases in health care costs. That is a simple fact, which does not come up.

Just a side note, my dad is a 38-year, 75-year old retired teacher from Holyoke MA. He has never had Master Medical and is currently in the GIC. He thinks the GIC is great…No one is asking the UTL to even go into the GIC and yet, we have the never ending drama without end.

The UTL union membership has very little idea if any idea what the current contract offers are. They deserve to now where the two sides are as does the public. I call again for public disclosure for both sides. The union leadership should not fear letting their membership know what the current terms are. Only then will the drama and the game playing end.

I will not be able to respond to any comments today due to a audit I am in the middle of. However, I appreciate that there are different opinions then mine and I respect you for having them. Have a great day everyone!!

The following Letter from Teacher’s Union President Paul George’s also appears in Today’s Sun has a LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

On Wednesday, Oct. 12, I appeared on “City Life” with Jack Mitchell. At the conclusion of nearly two hours on air and in a discussion off air and off the record, I addressed an issue that I knew was problematic to contract reso­lution that had been included by the Lowell School Committee at a recent mediated ses­sion. My purpose was to inform Mr. Mitchell that contract negotiations were not solely about money. To the extent that this brief exchange constitutes a breach of confidential-i­ty, I make my apology to anyone offended.

In response to Lowell School Committee member Jackie Doherty’s charge, I have no way of knowing if she knew of this when she spoke with The Sun reporter before the arti­cle appeared Saturday, Oct. 15, but I have been told that a reference to this exchange with Mitchell appeared on Sun reporter Jen Myers’ facebook page later on Oct. 15, after the newspaper article had been printed and long after The Sun reporter had contacted me on Friday, Oct. 14.

But to use this as justification to go to The Sun and give specific, extensive, misleading limited information under the condition of anonymity referring to us as “sharks” and in a subsequent letter to The Sun on Oct. 18 attack teachers and imply that the union leadership has little concern for its less-senior members, or pitting the interests of teachers against the interest of their students, is inex­cusable. There is no one more vested in our students’ success, other than their parents, than the teachers who teach them.

It is most unfortunate that Doherty failed to mention that whatever the final agreement is it will be for a three-year period — a period when this district has seen remarkable growth, particularly in some of our most chal­lenging schools, attaining state and national attention. Was the intention to vilify the teachers, mislead the public or draw atten­tion away from Doherty’s behavior? In case Doherty has forgotten, it was the United Teachers of Lowell (UTL) and its members that offered a concession on orientation-day pay in June 2009 and a commitment to fur­ther educate its members of lower cost health-care options that would save $750,000. The committee rejected the offer and someone from the Committee leaked some or all of the proposals to The Sun in June 2009.

It was the UTL working with the Lowell High School academic and club advisers in October 2009 that agreed to work for two­thirds pay and a contribution of $10,000 to keep club activities intact for the 2009-2010 school year.

It was the UTL that continued to bring in Boston Benefit Partners to advise School Department employees of lower cost health­care options, creating more than $6 million in health-care savings over the last four years.

It was the UTL and Superintendent of Schools Chris Scott working with the staff at the Murkland School that negotiated the nec­essary changes for the Murkland in an expe­dient, respectful and productive way. Yes, it can be done.

Until the UTL requested the assistance of a mediator, Doherty and this committee had met with the UTL only seven times in face-to­face negotiations during the first 30 months of this process. And while all other non-school related unions in the city have received salary increases since the last year of our last con­tract, our educational professionals have shown patience, commitment, professional­ism and solidarity of purpose in improving outcomes for our students.

This year, the School Department received $7 million in additional state aid and held over an additional $4.8 million in education jobs money from the previous year. Doherty’s letter states the “teachers union picks a poor time to seek pay raises.” Then, if not now, when? Our teachers and all educational professionals have been integral to improved student outcomes.

Doherty’s explanation and accompanying letter do a great disservice to their remarkable efforts.

PAUL GEORGES President United Teachers of Lowell