Biomass backstabbing-- citizens being sold down the river (but we're still swimming upstream)

To be blunt, this has not been a good week for biomass opponents and the residents of Springfield.   At Monday night's city council meeting, we expected councilors to authorize themselves to appeal the building permits issued to Palmer Renewable Energy for construction of a biomass plant.  Instead,  an obviously choreographed effort   between city solicitor Ed Pikula and Councilors Walsh, Ferrera and Rooke paved the way for Walsh to introduce rule 20, bringing the proceedings to an abrupt halt.   Western Mass. Politics and Insight   has an excellent blow-by-blow description of the evening's farce.

"Don't worry, we'll fix this on Monday," Councilor Mike Fenton told us, and I believe that he and the other nine councilors who also appose this biomass plant will prevail,  but it gives the council less time to file an appeal-- the deadline is December 15.

We've had some members researching campaign contributions from PRE's owners, family members and attorney, but the Valley Advocate summed it up nicely for us before we could finish. From the Callahan family:

• Jimmy Ferrera: $1,400
• Bud Williams: $1,400
• Kateri Walsh: $1,250
• Tim Rooke: $750

 From Callahan's attorney, Frank Fitzgerald:

• Walsh: $500
• Ferrera: $350
• Rooke:  $250
• Williams $250

 Now, do I think a councilor's vote can be bought so cheaply?  Possibly.....but what I actually suspect is that there were far more substantial offers of assistance, financial and otherwise, made to city councilors by PRE this year, which will never appear in a list of campaign contributions.  I suspect that that if city councilors revealed the extent to which they have been lobbied and cajoled, we would be shocked. 

But what I absolutely believe is that no city councilor should accept a financial contribution from any person who has business before the council and who would benefit financially from a council decision.

Second piece of bad news: just today, DEP handed down a "recommended" decision about our air permit appeal, basically saying that citizens have no "standing" to appeal a DEP-issued permit!  On the advice of attorneys, I'm not going to comment on our legal strategies at this point in time (except to say we still have plenty!), especially as the decision is not final until approved by DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel.  Our press release is below.  

I do, however, want people to think about the ramifications of this decision if it is upheld.  Clearly, DEP would not apply this decision only to PRE opponents, or only to those appealing air permits.   Think about it.  And we'll talk more later.

JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE
MA DEP’S RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
ON THE AIR PERMIT APPEAL REGARDING PALMER RENEWABLE ENERGY
BIOMASS PLANT IN SPRINGFIELD, MA

Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Says
No One Other than Developer Can Raise Administrative Challenges to
Power Plant Air Permits – Not Even Affected Residents

BOSTON, MA  November 30, 2011 – Conservation Law Foundation, Arise for Social Justice, and Toxics Action Center today issued the following joint statement in response to the Massachusetts DEP’s recommended final decision on the air permit appeal for Palmer Renewable Energy’s proposed biomass-fueled Power Plant in Springfield, MA.

“This decision, if adopted, would change the rules so as to prevent affected members of the public from participating in administrative appeals of air permits. It also would undermine the state’s clean energy agenda. The recommended decision, which does not address the substance of the petitioners’ claims, essentially says that no one other than the developer has the right to raise administrative challenges to power plant air permits – not even people already suffering from severe respiratory illness, nor people suffering from disproportionate air pollution burdens. We look to DEP Commissioner Kimmel to reject the recommended decision and preserve the right of Massachusetts residents to have a voice in decisions that affect their health.”

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

# # #

More to do on ward representation in Springfield

Today Arise had a press conference with some of the Springfield's most stalwart warriors for ward representation, to talk about what's gone right so far with the new system and what still needs to be done.

Successes:

• We now have geographic representation.  In the 10 years previous to changing to ward representation, an astounding 89% of at-large candidates came from only three of the city's eight wards.  Now every ward has a councilor.
• We have increased racial diversity.  In the 45 years previous to ward representation, only four African-Americans and one Latino had ever been elected to city council-- in fact, Jose Tosado got his first seat on the council when a councilor resigned and he moved up from 10th place. Now we have three Latino/as and two African-Americans in ward seat.

Still to be done:

• Increase voter turn-out.  Voter participation has been declining for decades, and ward representation is not going to turn that around in just two years.  However, in the 2008 election when ward representation was on the ballot, an astounding 74.2% of those who voted said YES to ward representation.
• Get more candidates running.  2009 was a truly competitive year for ward seats, but 2011 has only one ward with a contested race.  But instead of considering that a failure, it may very well be that people in each ward are pleased the with performance of their representative!

In the "fair and balanced" category, Pete Goonan of the Springfield Republican got comments from the two people who voted against placing ward representation on the ballot-- Tim Rooke, still currently serving in an at-large seat, and Bud Williams, who hopes to regain an at-large seat this November.  Bud gives ward representation a "C+."  I wonder if he enjoyed the good old days of the at-large system, when he got to be the only African-American on city council?

Yesterday's press conference featured some of the real heroes of ward representation.  Frank Buntin and Gumersindo Gomez, Exec. Dir. of the Puerto Rican Veterans Center, started meeting about ward rep in 1992, and we built on their experience.  Both stayed involved for the long haul.  Joe Fountain tried to file a lawsuit against the at-large system in 1996, but was denied standing as a white person.  He brought the lawsuit to Arise and we recruited the NAACP and the Spanish American Union (now sadly defunct) to join with us in the first federal lawsuit.  Rev. Talbert Swan II was a plaintiff in the second lawsuit, and involved his network in pushing the work forward.  Council president Jose Tosado, a long-time supporter of ward rep, got the city council to approve placing the ward rep question on the 2008 ballot.  And there were so many more that if I get started, I'll be bound to forget important people, but I do have to give a shout-out to E. Henry Twiggs, Min. Yusuf Muhammad, Nick Camerota, Norm Oliver, Alan Howard and Mable Sharif, to name a few, and, within Arise, most especially Joe Oliverio, Tory Field and Liz Bewsee.

We have a lot more to do to make sure democracy really works in Springfield.  I called the Election Office last week to see if there were any community groups leading the charge on voter registration, and sadly, there were not-- not even, to date, Arise.  But we're going to turn that around.  We need a new coalition in Springfield that focuses on voter education and participation, that helps identify potential leaders and that mentors them through the electoral process.  The Springfield Institute and MassVOTE have already offered support.  Who else would like to join us?



Photo from the Springfield Institute.

FOUR councilors reject ethics proposal-- what are they afraid of?

Mike Plaisance did a nice piece of reporting yesterday in the wake of City Council's failure to pass an Ethics proposal, 's today in the wake of the faulure of an proposed ethics law which would have required financial and conflict of interest disclosures.

It turns out that all nine of Springfield MA's city councilors have spouses or family members who work for a government agency, or they themselves do.

Now, this isn't a bad thing per se. On the face of it, it simply means a family committed to public service. Making this information public-- and of course, it's no secret to those in the know anyway-- just puts potential conflict of interest issues aboveboard for all to see. Financial disclosure shouldn't be very controversial, either.

Yet the Gang of Four-- Bill Foley, Tim Rooke, Jimmy Ferrera and Bud Williams voted against the ethics proposal, with reasons ranging from too much paperwork to protestations of honesty. The proposal was sponsored by Bruce Stebbins and Pat Markey and supported by Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty and Jose Tosado. Kateri Walsh was absent.

All this plays out as we approach our city council's first election with a mixed system of ward councilors and at-large. We have all at-large now, nine seats, but next November we will only be electing five at-large. So at least four of Springfield's current councilors will not be returning to the Council next year (unless some choose to run from their ward and I doubt any of them will, they'd consider it a "demotion.")

My guess is that two of the "Gang of Four" will not run for re-election. I've got my thoughts, which two do you think?

Councilor Tim Rooke doesn't get ward representation

The Civil Rights and Race Relations Committee met again this afternoon to discuss plans for implementing ward representation. I must say it was a thought-provoking meeting. Each department head that had been charged with assessing potential changes in their departments gave a report. Mike Plaisance over at the Republican will probably give more details but for me two issues remained key. The first is resolving the situation with the School Committee, three of whose members were elected for four year terms but who can only serve two years in order for ward representation to be implemented.. The second issue, and one that will play out over time, is the role of neighborhood councils and civic associations in a system with ward representation.

Councilor Tim Rooke (not on the committee) came in about fifteen minutes after the meeting started and was greeted by Chairman Tosado. Rooke started by asking about salaries for ward councilors-- were they going to be the same as at-large councilors? Tosado said yes, that he had looked at Chicopee and Holyoke, both of which have at-large and ward councilors, and that the salaries were the same.

Rooke said he'd wondered about that, because, for example (I'm going to have to paraphrase here because I didn't have a tape recorder) if you were a councilor from ward seven, you'd get to vote on ward seven issues, but....At that point, he seemed to tune into a general sense of disagreement.

"Isn't that the way it is?" he asked.

"Everybody votes on everything," I said, at which point Chairman Tosado said, "Michaelann, please, let the lawyer answer that," cutting me off. (Although I noted he seemed to have no problem with the men who spoke out of turn.) So then City Attorney Ed Pakula gave the legal opinion and basically said just what I'd said, only with more words..

I must say I was just astounded that a sitting city councilor, who was one of two "no" votes on ward representation proposal when it came before City Council in 2006 apparently was unaware of the details of what he was opposing and even now has not taken the time to educate himself about ward representation-- now the law of the land, even for him, if he plans to run again. Perhaps he thinks he's such a shoe-in for an at-large seat next fall that he doesn't have to think about those those lowly ward councilors?

At this point Councilor Rooke went from bad to worse when he started questioning whether there would still be a role for neighborhood councils and if the city should continue to pay for staff for some of them! Of course this is exactly what the neighborhood council members present were fearful about, a forced irrelevance of the council and civic association system.

Rooke said he thought Mayor Sullivan had created the neighborhood council system in the 70's as a way of giving neighborhoods a voice, but now with the ward representation, would they be needed? I thought his question surprisingly parochial seeing as nearly every city in Massachusetts has neighborhood councils AND a mixed-- at-large and ward-- city council. Maybe Councilor Rooke doesn't get out of town much. I think it was Councilor Tosado who had a good comeback-- neighborhood councils are not ward-based and neighborhoods often overlap wards.

Well, I certainly think there's a continued need for neighborhood-based organizations.As far as I can recall, we've got twelve neighborhood councils and ten civic associations. Long may they reign.

I'll save the School Committee for tomorrow..

Ward Representation moves closer to the Springfield ballot

The Home Rule legislation which will allow a question on ward representation to be placed on this November's ballot has passed the House of Representatives and is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow in the Senate's Rules Committee, according to Candace Lopes, aide to Sen. Stephen Buoniconti, when I spoke to her yesterday.

The legislation will have plenty of time to pass the full Senate to make it on our city's November's ballot.

When the City Council finally passed an 8 & 5 version of ward representation last October, it was with the threat of our-- Arise, the NAACP and Oiste's-- federal lawsuit going to trial in just a few months.

I watched the proceedings on community access TV with a great cynicism. I knew that it was the lawsuit that had finally forced the City Council's hand, that they'd begun to see ward representation as an irresistible force. Even then they passed as weak a version as they could get away with, and didn't even pass it outright -- they voted to put the question on November's ballot. Ten years ago our coalition worked the streets and collected enough signatures to get the 8 & 3 version of ward representation on the ballot, and it won 58% of the vote! It did not become law because one-third of all the registered voters would have had to vote for it-- and not that many turned out for the whole election.

Not once during the evening's proceeding was there even a mention of the twelve solid years of community organizing that had gotten us to this point-- and of course the council did not call themselves out on their twelve years of foot-dragging, broken promises and outright lies. There were a few councilors along the way who were exceptions-- but they were never in the majority. (Oh-- and Tim Rooke, who never once lied about his opposition to ward representation.)

Our lawsuit was stayed by Judge Ponser pending the outcome of the Home Rule legislation and the November vote. I want to stop and say a heartfelt thanks here to the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Goodwin Proctor, who took on our lawsuit pro bono and who have been passionately committed and intelligent in their work with us. They mined the collective memory of community organizers to compile many lifetimes of racial injustice, police brutality, economic discrimination and thwarted expectations. Much of this was never heard in trial.

Twelve years of organizing-- petitioning, two lawsuits, lobbying the councilors, building community support-- has now come down to a binding vote for eight ward councilors and five at large for the City Council, and four ward reps and two at large for the School Committee (with the mayor as the deciding vote).

We, the plaintiffs, have to decide whether we will actively support the question. At this point we are not of one mind. We have to talk to each other. We're tired, bitter, feeling betrayed. And yet.

The Arise board of directors met last night and while we postponed an official vote until we know for sure that people will get to vote on ward rep in November, my sense is that we will throw ourselves into rebuilding a coalition and getting this law passed. This time, it only has to pass by a majority.

One built-in shortcoming of our lawsuit is that it has focused the public's attention on the racial inequity of the current at-large system, to the exclusion of all the other excellent reasons we need ward representation. I'm going to write more about them in another post. But I have to say, one more time, for the record:
Forty-six years of an at large system
Five Blacks and one Latino elected
in a city now a majority of color.
Enough is enough..

Ward Representation and Bud Williams— Forget what I did before…just buy what I’m saying now….

Last night City Council approved a small change in the ward representation legislation it sent to the Legislature in October so that the question of “8 wards, 5 at-large” can be on the ballot this November.

Of course, ward rep opponents on the council took the opportunity to reiterate reasons against changing the current system. None of them mentioned one driving force behind their opposition: they might not be able to be re-elected under a mixed, ward and at-large system.

I did get a chance to see for myself what will be the two pillars of opposition to ward representation this fall.

Tom Rooke reiterated his belief that anybody can get elected to City Council if they just work hard enough, and that a seat on the council shouldn’t be “handed” to anyone. This message will certainly appeal to those white people who share his belief and fear what would happen if people of color start getting elected to City Council in numbers that reflect their percentage in the population.

Bus Williams, though, says that the idea of ward rep is 10 to 15 years too late—that passing ward rep now, when our population is becoming “browner and browner,” is a disservice to people of color, who, apparently, (and now we switch back to Rooke’s line) could now get elected to the City Council simply on the basis of their increasing numbers in the population if they tried hard enough.

What he forgot to say was that he has opposed ward representation for those entire 15 years!

More later.