A Truth is Not THE Truth

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin argues once again that taking facts out of context can bear little relationship to a universal truth, and wishes things were as simple as some people believe.

One more time. Does the teacher salary matrix, as negotiated 3 years ago, seem somewhat insensitive to the current fiscal crisis we are in? Yes. When I was the only SC member to vote against the approval of the contract at the time, something hard for me to do because I am a teacher, and a former member of a teacher's union, I said we were mortgaging the future, and that if the proverbial bottom dropped out, the teachers would bear the brunt of criticism. I am not Nostradamus; I just believed, 3 years ago, it would have implications down the road.

Is the salary schedule and structure a significant driver in the overall increase of school costs? Yes. The only one? No. Singling out the teachers, and analyzing their contract with no reference or familiarity to exactly what was gained or lost at the table is short-sighted, simplistic, and what those familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous call "stinkin' thinkin'."

Why? Because the analysis makes assumptions that are drawn not from reality, but from the way you think reality is, must be. The teachers have snookered the SC, the SC snookers the community, and what we have here is a whole lot of snookerin' going on. An assumption. A particularly nasty one, because it gains momentum to the degree it can demonize "the other" (fat cat selfish teachers), and do collateral damage as well (that easily snookered, lying School Committee).

So, what do we gain here that is of use to the community? After two of the hardest years our staff have ever had to endure, we are blaming them for all the problems of the schools. After
the SC has finally managed to address a range of problems from building safety to best practices through a reconfiguration that saved $750,000 in one year, and postponed any discussion of building a new school ($30,000,000) for ten years, we are finding a way to blame the School Committee.

Nothing. Nada. In fact, these truths, proffered as so self-evident, damage our relationship with the teachers as we go into contract negotiations. Maybe we'll clean out that rat's nest of ineptitude that has been pretending to be a SC. That's not tough; there will two new members under the worst case scenario.

Is every licensed teacher a good teacher? No.
Is every cop a by the books, honest cop? No.
Is everyone choosing to home school kids doing the right thing? No.
Is every Hollywood star a hedonistic, drug-using moron? No.
Does every player in baseball use steroids? No.

Like I've said before, a goat has a beard, but that doesn't make it a Rabbi.

Are the teachers solely responsible for the increase in costs in the running of schools? When 25% of our budget is used to pay for our statutory obligations to 10% of the student population, and that 25% can vary (upwards, always upwards) by $250,000, no. When utility costs doubled in one year, and every building we have has envelope issues, no. When the state requires every teacher to get a Master's Degree in an accredited program within five years to maintain a license to teach, you are dealing with a work force that needs constant professional development. I haven't finished the research, but I'm betting that aside from cosmetologists no licensed profession starts at a lower average base salary.

Has the time come for a new approach by the entire city to negotiating salaries? Yes, absolutely. We are way, way overdue for it. Can I sit here tonight and tell you what we will put on the table, take it or leave it? No, because that is bargaining in bad faith. There are labor laws prohibiting that kind of posturing on either side before talks begin; engaging in a specific public dialogue about upcoming contract negotiation strategies and goals in a specific way wanders dangerously close to the edge of what is legal; and it is way over the top when it comes to demonizing the second largest workforce in the city.

There will be reforms in upcoming contracts. There will be a reflection, I expect, of the increasing importance of student achievement and professional development, of new approaches to teacher assessment approached in upcoming contracts. It will take time; the reality is that when we sit down with the Newburyport Teachers Association to negotiate, they are represented by the Massachusetts Teachers association; in effect we are sitting down with every teacher's union in the state, and trying to avoid negotiating the same contract with the NTA that everyone else has. We are optimistic.

But anybody who thinks that there will be wholesale changes in one contract, while at the same time using a simplistic analysis of the last teachers contract without any reference to context, is naive, and in my estimation, simply not ready for prime time. Now is not the time for bluster and finger-pointing. You may have discovered a stand-alone context-less truth, but don't try peddling that crap as THE TRUTH. There is no one, single truth, especially when your analysis lacks any context.

That is your truth, and you are welcome to it. At it's very heart, it is divisive and incomplete. The city deserves a better and more honest framing of the issues, and the students deserve an elected official who is able to resist reducing complex problems to simple yes/no, us/them formulations.

Better Than Zero-based Budgeting-- Part 2

Summary: In which Menin describes a better budgeting process being adapted the School Committee.

The previous post describes on a meta-level the driving forces behind the approach to school budgeting before the arrival of Kevin Lyons. I have previously dealt with the issues of budget "drivers," such as teacher salaries, utilities and Sp Ed costs, and will continue to address those issues directly in future posts. I also didn't talk about the general process for creating the budget; I've gone over that previously and will again before the election.

The School Committee and Dr. Lyons have agreed on a simple guiding principle in moving forward on budgets.

Student achievement.

Rocket science. Had we figured that out years ago, (six, to be exact) when Dick Sullivan and I joined the School Committee and advocated putting the kids and curriculum first, we'd still be facing deficits, but the erosion of our curriculum wouldn't have proceeded at such a dramatic rate.

We will be looking at the budget through the filter of what best preserves and promotes student achievement in every area. We will put resources where analysis best indicates they can impact on the learning. Do we need curriculum development, professional training, do we need an additional class to provide more intensive or remedial support? We will prioritize that.

This year, we will be using tools for forecasting that we have never had. We will have hard data about which curriculum areas need immediate attention, which grades, which subject areas need to be focused on, what are the best practices to address those needs.

The budget process will utilize the feedback from the School Council, which in turn will be informed by the systematic, ongoing assessment of student progress. Once it has gone through Administrative Council (all of the administrators in the system, and the Superintendent), the Superintendent presents a recommended budget to the School Committee, which holds public, open hearings to consider the recommendations, and get feedback from the community.

Last year between the reconfiguration and the budget, the School Committee held over 20 public hearings; accepting public feedback at all of them.

It isn't zero-based budgeting. It's something better-- budgets driven by student achievement.

Coming to a School Committee near you-- soon.

Adapting Zero-based Budgeting Part 1

Summary paragraph: In which Menin briefly explains again why zero-based budgeting is an abstract exercise when it comes to creating School Budgets, but how a budget that is organized around a central idea makes more sense.

One of the unfortunate smokescreens blown during the override campaign was the need to change our approach to school budgeting to one based on the principles of "zero-based budgeting"- you start from Zero, and then begin to add in fixed costs, operating costs, costs incurred statutorily and keep building your budget from zero to whatever it becomes. Virtually no school systems use this format in it's purest form; because the variables that go into School Budgets are very volatile. It is hard to start from zero, because you very quickly move to meeting those expenses required by federal and state law-- classroom/teacher ratios, curriculum emphasis; then you add in known fixed expenses that are predictable- salaries, benefits, etc.

Since salaries in any municipal branch of government are going to amount to the great bulk of the expense- about 80% for education, and 88-94% for the last three years in the police and fire departments here in Newburyport, you have very little left for the operating costs like heat and electricity, which have varied wildly over the past five years.

With Special Ed costs, there are four principles that make projecting them an exercise in frustration-- 1) We have one of the highest rates in the state of serving Sp Ed students in the our district, as opposed to sending them out to other placements; 2) Costs for the specific services themselves are rising at an unpredictable rate from year to year; 3) It is, at best a crap shoot to estimate how many students will need special education services from year to year, with move-ins, move outs, new diagnoses, etc; and 4) It is hard to estimate the level of direct services these students will need. They represent about 10% of our students, and 25% of our need.

There is a better way to create a budget, though; something that is now possible for the first time, because Kevin Lyons has a year under his belt and the administrators and teachers share his vision for the schools.

Prior to this year, one of the most frustrating aspects of preparing the budget wasn't so much the steady cutting, but the lack of a coherent principle to justify those cuts. What should we cut to survive was the dominant question; some of us argued for a different question as the basis for budgetary action- why should we cut this. What is the impact on student achievement if we cut this? Prior to Dr. Lyons, or at least the five years I served under 2 previous Superintendents, at no time was a draft budget presented to us predicated on the simple question 'what can we do to preserve and promote student achievement.'

Several of us asked the question, repeatedly, in several different ways; we tried to tie the budget to a focus on student achievement. It didn't happen; simply because the information was not collected and tabulated in a way that allowed us to create a big picture, a driving vision for our schools. No real vision (except for vague ideas about best practices, excellent schools, and bricks and mortar).

And when that information was available, it was glossy, incomplete, with little year-to-year trend analysis.

So the common practice was to start with the budget of the previous year, and cut from there. The Committee would ask for a "level services budget" (one that projects the costs for keeping programs currently running, without assuming new or restored programs.). Once we had seen that budget, we would then ask the Superintendent to prepare a "level services budget"-- one that assumes no additional income. from the current year, which was, in effect, the "cuts" budget. And the the theory behind how we cut was to leave enough of the bare bones left, so that when money started flowing, we'd be able to bring it all back.

There are two flaws that were obvious in this approach, both of which I argued about on the floor of the SC for years. The first is that it assumes the way we have been doing things is the way we should always do things. The second is that such an approach is divorced from student achievement. What we were spending money on did not have a direct relationship to student outcomes. We kept class sizes small, and then watched the curriculum being taught die from neglect. Changing institutional cultures and practices is slow work; I have likened the first five years I spent on the school committee to 'riding shotgun on a glacier'.

There was, and is, and now will be a better way.

Next post...

The Charter School- My Position

Summary: In which Menin restates his position on the River Valley Charter School.

Some history and reality: Different kids learn in different ways. They take in information differently, process it differently; they develop the ability to think and be social in highly individualized ways. One size doesn't fit all.

The ability of a public school district to individualize and approach teaching students creatively really comes down to two things: money, and leadership. Well, there actually is a third factor- the ability to think and act outside the box. You can't just have two; you need all three.

The Charter School movement, to the extent that I understand the history, was the result of the confluence of two major tides in American thinking. The first was the recognition that many districts were not meeting the needs of the poorest, most challenged students; they were not adapting to the urban reality that in some neighborhoods, you can't do your homework when there are gunshots outside your window; you can't rely on parental support when the parent is a single mom working two jobs to put food on the table. Schools were simply not offering enough choices to students.

The second was the conservative movement towards privatization. When it became clear that school vouchers was a non-starter, the movement backed the Charter Schools idea. It was predicated on an overt agenda that competition is good, regardless of the market, and I believe a more subtle interest in stepping control of Schools away from elected boards representing the whole city, and into private boards, while still using state funds. Massachusetts codified the Charter School concept in 1993; and in hindsight there were two key elements that would prove to be divisive and noxious to the overall debate about best practices in education.

The first was that the funding for Charter Schools came right out of the Chapter 70 allotment for each host community. Since the Charter's students going out of Newburyport were funded at twice the amount of choice students coming in (the rationale was that unlike the public district, which owns it's buildings, Charter's had to assume capital and rental costs) , it caused an immediate impact locally to the school budget. For a while, the state gradually eased the money transition, but eventually, the stark reality set in. Had the funding for the Charter schools been a separate line item in the budget, and not funded through the reduction of Chapter 70 aid to public districts, a great deal of the tension would have been relieved.

The second was that a key line in legislation spoke about Charter Schools as being in "competition" with host public district schools, when it probably should have said "collaboration." Even legislation author Mark Roosevelt concedes the phrase did not capture the spirit of the legislative intent.

In Newburyport, the Charter school was founded by a group of parents who had long lobbied the School District for significant changes in the curriculum, teaching methodology and use of "best practices." These interests were longtime concerns; at the time I don't know if the School Committee considered trying to address these concerns by exploring the creation of a Horace Mann Charter School- a charter that is overseen by the School Committee.

As an institution, with a publicly elected body, the public district was unable to address the issues presented by the parents in a timely fashion; the decision by the parents to use the Charter School legislation, with it's favorable language, was taken very personally by the sitting School Committee and the community. It was one of the early Charter Schools outside of an urban setting.

Shortly after I was first elected in 2000, I became the first member of the School Committee to visit the Charter School, and worked for years to find some common ground for dialogue between the public district and Charter folks. Actually, I worked with Senator Baddour to try to find a way to get everyone to the table. Some fitful efforts were made, which resulted in a joint letter to the legislature saying there should be more funding for all elements in the educational system.

I believe that every school should have the resources and the flexibility to meet students where they are, to provide challenges and supports in appropriate measures.

I believe that one way to assess the degree to which a student has mastered skills is for them to present, or exhibit those skills, and not only through testing.

As a trained Montessori teacher, I believe that there are three year developmental periods between the ages of 0-21; that an individualized and well thought out program can be delivered through the greater use of multi-age classrooms.

Newburyport lacked the resources, leadership and momentum to do these things. More than that, the School Committee was wedded to an approach to education that was traditional, slow to innovate, and increasingly oriented towards teaching to the middle.

I understand the motivation of the Charter School parents.

I wish, and would advocate that Charter School funding be detached from what is a direct loss of Chapter 70 funds at a rate disproportionate to what Newburyport receives, to a separate line item in the state budget, with a separate funding mechanism.

The Charter school is real, and it isn't going away. I prefer to deal with, and make the best of reality. I believe that there is much we can learn from their efforts to date, and there are probably ways in which we can achieve some economic efficiencies by working together. I believe we can share "best practices" with each other, do joint training of staff, and perhaps even cross-offer Explores for the middle school-aged kids.

I wish there hadn't been an urgency on the part of the founding parents to create the school. However, I can also see, based on joining the School Committee shortly after the River Valley opened, that there was no way in hell a dialogue between the School Committee and Administration and the Charter advocates was possible; the atmosphere was poisonous and venomous.

That was a long time ago. Dale Bishop and Kevin Lyon have professional history with one another, which bodes well. I support a stepped-up conversation about education between the two of us; I support finding common ground and working towards a relationship that benefits both groups.

As the financial crisis eases over the coming years, I would like to have the School Committee consider opening a Horace Mann Charter School that has a focus on the arts or math/sciences. That is one of the reasons I have strongly advocated that the City retain control of the Kelley School; the building modifications to meet code for an upper level school (Middle, High School) are less stringent that those for and elementary school.

And I'll continue to lobby for the Charter Schools to be funded through a mechanism other than Chapter 70.

A Quick Note About the Forum

Summary paragraph: In which Menin tries to sum up the Educational Funding Forum held this evening.

Although the turnout could have been larger for the Forum tonight, the discussion was fruitful and spirited.

To boil it down to a few main points, I think we can safely say:

• There are some efforts that can be made to tweak the Chapter 70 formula that might help Newburyport in small ways in '09, such as looking at reimbursement for SPED transportation, and adjusting the incoming/outgoing rates for students going to the charter school.
• Efforts to reform Proposition 2.5 to allow for a binding restriction on money raised, to keep it permanently designated for schools is a fight no one has the stomach for. (Although no-one asked whether such a change could be made with a sunset clause in it that looks out five or ten years ahead)
• It is very unlikely that the minimum bottom will rise from 17.5% to 20% reimbursement, because of the influx of cash needed to make that happen.
• It is unlikely that the activation of circuit-breaker SPED money will change from the current 4X foundation figure (statutorily funded at 75% when money is apportioned, traditionally funded at 72% of costs over 4X foundation). We had hoped that since we have one of the highest rates of serving special needs kids in-district, which is the legal, moral, and fiscally most responsible thing to do, we might get the state to look at rewarding schools systems with high in district service rates by having circuit-breaker kick in at 3X. A nonstarter, it seems.
• The most immediate source of savings for the city would be the agreement of the City unions to enter into the state GIC pool, which would leverage the "buying power" of multiple communities to provide equal or better insurance plans at tremendous savings. Those would be somewhere between $500,000 and $800,000 in '09. The problem is that we have to get all city unions to the table, to do that each needs to waive the requirement of 30 days notice to meet (the window closes on October 29th); and then have a weighted vote of 70% of the union approve. The 70% threshold is easily attained, with the teachers and AFSME representing somewhere near 80% of the unionized employees in the City. The problem is that all the other unions have granted waivers and are ready to meet; apparently the two police unions have yet to respond.
• Federal help will not be coming in time for the '09 budget start, because of the commitment to veto any measure above his spending caps made by President Bush, and the inability (in the Senate) to muster a veto-proof majority. Our Congressman John Tierney chairs the House Subcommittee on Education, Senator Kennedy Chairs the same Committee in the Senate; and the hope is that a new administration of the Democratic persuasion might refocus our national funding priorities.
• Representative Costello feels that outside of joining GIC, which would free up money in the budget, and some tweaking of Chapter 70, the only real hope for '09 is in an override.

So, the School Revenue Task Force will issue the first of 3 or 4 preliminary updates on November 5th. It is fair to say that there are many more ideas being discussed to address long-term funding issues, and that these ideas will not just be limited to how the school does business, but will involve the City side as well.

Revenue Task Force Pre-Update about Impending Update

Although the first public "reporting out" or preliminary recommendations will happen at the November 5th School Committee meeting, Chair Brenda Reffett is preparing a public statement that will talk about the general topics we are pursuing; and recommendations we have already forwarded to the Mayor. In keeping with the spirit of our deliberations, I'll defer any specific comments and post her statement when it is available.

What I will say is this; the dialogue has been free-wheeling, very creative, brutally honest, and very clearly speaks to immediate ('09) needs, and long-term, institutional reforms and projects that could have a positive impact on the schools and the City in years to come.

If there is one more School Committee meeting you come to, I'd suggest the November 5th one. Not only is the agenda packed with critical updates and information, it is the last one before the election.

Have I mentioned I'm running for re-election, and would appreciate your vote?

A Chance To Be Heard

Summary: In which Menin reminds Newburyport of the Forum tonight

See you at the Nock Mick Middle School auditorium tonight at 7 pm. Expected to be there listening will be in Michelle Norman, Director of Policy for the Governor's Committee on Education, Julie Ryder from Senator Kennedy's office, State Senator Steve Baddour and Representative Mike Costello. Congressman John Tierney has been invited, but his attendance or that of a staff member or his staff haven't been confirmed.

A special thanks to Dick Sullivan, Jr., whose advocacy for education didn't end with his tenure on the School Committee.

A Balance of Questions

Summary paragraph: In which Menin shares something he learned about asking questions, and applies it to his time on the School Committee.

One of the first things I learned from the crisis work I referred to several posts ago, was how to phrase a question. You never should ask a why question; because it feels judgmental to the person you are saying it to, and it lends itself to an answer that moves the conversation in unproductive directions.

"Why did you do that?"

Why not?
Because!
What's it to you?

See what I mean? It may be torturous and long-winded to talk around the WHY, but it really helps.

I noticed that every time your cross a street, you genuflect. Can you help me understand a little more about that?

Yeah, WHY is quicker, but the above example opens up the conversation in a more generous and sympathetic way. And, it isn't judgmental.

So all ye candidates running for public office, some hard-won advice from the field of battle.

Open as few of your questions with a variation of "why" as possible (why do, why must, why did, why didn't, why can't, why won't, why will, etc.)

Start every possible exchange with "What if..." as much as possible.

"What if" is an invitation to partnership and collaboration, it is a sign that you are listening, a sign that you are affirming the other person. It is an invitation to step outside the box and dream.

"Why" is simply an invitation to step out into the parking lot and settle matters.

A simple civics lesson I've learned the hard way.

What if the the long over-due dialogue about municipal reform began with the question, what if...

For A Dancer... (Warning- sentimental)

Summary Paragraph: In which Bruce Menin remembers the life and death of a close friend, which occurred on the 1st anniversary of his own wedding to Julie Menin. And the lessons he learned from Charlie.

In that wonderful way life has of wrapping the sweet and the bitter, intertwined like ivy reaching skyward, October 15th has a special meaning for my wife and I. It is our wedding anniversary; in fact this is our 14th Anniversary. She is my hero; she is a wonderful, intentional loving mother, and has more creative muscles she hasn't flexed than anyone I know.

On October 15th, 13 years ago, one of my closest friends, Charlie Stramiello, succumbed to AIDS. It was an agonizing passing for him; the only time I ever visited a psychic, out of the blue, she told me that I needed to keep urging him in my prayers to look for the light, and then he would be alright.

Charlie and I met in 1972. We were both early admissions to a local Community College as part of the first group of American students to participate in the then brand new International Baccalaureate program. You skipped the last year of high school, took a very heavy course load in 5 subject areas and philosophy; the second year was spent in London; at the end of the two years we took a single exam 8 hours long in each subject area. Pass the test get the diploma. Fail the diploma, you still has an associates degree, with something like 90 credits to show for two years work.

Charlie got in because he was brilliant, and the program was creaming off the top of every high school in the county. I got in because they needed to fill a seat to make the program fly.

During our first day in class, our English teacher, the prim, bookish wife of one of the Deans, began to describe our studies for the semester. Her passion for the subject absolutely transformed her. Suddenly, her hair came down, she moved like an actress on the stage, and we were transfixed at her astonishing change, from quiet, subtle contained personality to an alive, sinewy, electric figure in front of us.

It was at that moment that Charlie, who was sitting next to me, passed a note betting me $5 that he would somehow do something so wonderfully bold, outrageous and libidinous with the Dean's wife by the end of the semester that I'm still blushing to this day. I knew then that I liked his style.

Charlie was an a terrific actor, a brilliant student, at times a hedonist; there was nothing he wouldn't try, and he was one of the funniest human beings I've ever met. We did some traveling together, actually spending a night shivering in the ruins of some castle near the Welsh border because we'd arrived too late to get into the hostel. Charlie and I had our ears pierced before we left England, he for his reasons, mine because I felt the year in England had marked a passage into adulthood for me. I passed out, and came to listening to Charlie yelling at the woman for what she had done to me.

Charlie hid his diagnosis from me for over a year; he lost friends because of it, and thought he would lose our friendship. That it meant so much to him surprised me, I remember; as did his fear that he would lose it over this issue. I also couldn't get my arms around how it was possible for someone to disappear from a friend's life when they needed you.

Charlie, who appeared in a few movies (The Eyes of Laura Mars and Star Dust Memories) had given up acting, was actually at the pinnacle of his next profession when he was forced to give up work. He had decided to become a meeting planner, if one actually makes such a decision; and within a few years, he was on the cover of their trade journal as one of the top 10 meeting planners in the country. He was president of their New York trade association for a year as well. That's where I borrowed the picture of him.

I tried to get back into New York City at least every month to spend time with him and his partner. In the summer of 1994, a few of us who had gone to school in England got together; I drove to NYC to pick him up and then back to Cape Cod to visit with all of us. He was gaunt.
He didn't last two nights, he was in a great deal of pain, so we drove back to New York.

Julie and I visited him in the hospital in September '94, at the urging of his partner. He was lucid, and when we hugged goodbye, we both knew it was goodbye. That was unlike everything I'd ever done or known before; I was deeply affected.

As Julie and I were celebrating our first anniversary, October 15th, 1994 at a B & B on Cape Cod, Paul, Charlie's partner called to tell us he had passed.

We were there for the funeral; a totally surrealistic event that Charlie couldn't have planned better if he had tried. I went up to pay my respects to his earthly remains, and his family had pinned above his face on top of the casket interior a picture of Charlie and I holding his ubiquitous bulldog, Hoonie, which Charlie had named after hearing someone use the phrase to describe a part of their body. That was pretty much when I lost it.

We all do the best we can. I have, had great affection for his parents, who were like a great indulgent surrogate aunt and uncle to me during my delinquent days, pulling all-nighters with Charlie to study before we left for England. Despite Charlie's eclectic lifestyle, they felt obligated to send him with some sort of religious ceremony, so they brought in a rent a priest.

And the priest talked about the tragedy of losing a son, because it also meant losing grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. And everyone in the audience knew Charlie had sown some mighty wild oats, but the likelihood of any of them producing an heir was extremely remote. So in the middle of the Padre's soliloquy, Mike, Charlie's Dad, asked if I would do an impromptu eulogy.

I did. I recounted some of our adventures, and some of my observations. Some stories were dicey, some roll on the floor funny, but they were all Charlie. As kind and considerate as he was, he could be outrageous and completely disarm anyone with words alone. A master at the snap. You ached after he went to sleep, or the visit was over, because his observations of the world were so witty and cogent. His friends in the audience, and his family also knew this Charlie, so it worked.

And then I looked out into the crowd, and saw several people who had abandoned him during his illness. Charlie was too busy and had too short an attention span to hold a grudge; but in some of our conversations, he named these people as the ones who had most disappointed him, by not returning calls or notes he had sent. He didn't have any "business" with any of them, didn't owe them money, he simply wanted their company.

My final comments were directed at them. Time is short, it passes quickly. People matter, lordy, in the end, they matter most. How you move through life among human beings, how you find ways to honor and love and comfort them; that really matters.

13 years and I swear I still think about him every day. Tomorrow, I'll light a memorial candle for him. A light. And I'll say the prayer again; move towards the light, Charlie. And don't trip on anything in the dark.

And Charlie, if he was watching me, would laugh and call me a putz.
"Why light a whole candle, you putz!" he would say.
"I was only half-Jewish."

For some reason, every time I approached New York City to visit him, I'd be cruising the radio dial, and the Jackson Browne song "For a Dancer" would be playing, and I would have to pull over because it always brought me to tears; still does.

It's all about Charlie, the song. It captures him like no other words I could ever string together.

So even in the middle of running for re-election, I am still learning to hold onto moments with the people in my life I see. My in-laws, my wife and kids. My neighbors, my friends, my peers, strangers; even people who I know have trashed me behind my back.

Because, as the Paradoxical Commandments point out, it is never about you and them, it's really about you and G-d.

I miss you, Chas. And I am grateful beyond words for the life I have been given, my partner Julie, my kids, my gifts and my challenges.

Keep moving towards the light Charlie. I know I'll need a guide when I cross over, so gotta get there.
And Happy Anniversary, Julie. How about we set up the tent in the backyard, and let the kids sleep out, and then order a pizza, just you and me?

Moon Dance

Lovely moon out there tonight. Clouds are clearing, and a fair breeze blowing out to right.

Go Sox. Go Youk, the Greek God of Walks, who isn't really Greek. Go Dustin Pedroia, who is smaller than I am. Go Tim Wakefield and Mike Timlin, who deserve another ring for their yeoman's service to the Sox over the years. Go Mike Lowell. Go Josh Beckett, the main reason my fantasy baseball team finished first this year.

And finally, go Big Papi. I had the chance to take each of my kids to their first game at Fenway this year, on separate occasions. And Papi homered in each game.

And go, voters. Look for the bridge builders.

It's a marvelous night for a Moondance.

Crisis Theory, Opportunity and Bridge Builders

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin sees opportunity where others don't.

In an earlier incarnation, I spent five years doing Emergency Mental Health work, both over the phones as a suicide counselor, and as an Outreach worker. I made 1,400 "home visits". I use the term home in it's broadest sense; we were the team of specialists who would get called to talk people off of bridges, do hostage negotiations, talk people out of killing someone else, visited alleys, department stores, bathrooms, city buses, just about any place a person can get themselves. We essentially served as a bridge between those in need of supportive services, and those services.

It was the most learning I have ever done in a five year period. I learned about humility and grace, fear and anger; I learned about how people cope with loss, and in several cases, how they prepare to die.

And I learned about me. In 1,400 home visits I was assaulted ten times, by a tiny fraction of the people I saw. I can tell you from personal experience that you are far more likely to be assaulted in a bar than by some one with mental illness. I also learned what it is like to be shot at, have a refrigerator tossed out a window at me; dodge a knife; a client once opened their door and had a loaded cross-bow pointed at my gut. I learned what it is like to try to resolve a hostage situation negotiating through a door while I could see the SWAT team setting up on the roof across the street. Another time, we were called out to talk with a Viet Nam vet who was parked in front of his ex-wife's house, an empty syringe, filled with air, jabbed into a vein in his arm; when a press helicopter flew overhead for pictures for the late news ("film at 11"), he started screaming. The only reason I think we didn't lose him was that the police all pulled out their service revolvers and aimed it the copter, which took off like a bat out of hell.

I learned what a privilege it is to serve, to be present with a person in their hardest, most frightening moments. Believe me, there was nothing heroic, by any tortured stretch of the imagination, to the work we were doing. It was humbling, powerful; and it was threaded with moments of otherworldly grace.

What does this have to do with Newburyport? Something I have alluded to in earlier posts was perfectly articulated in Mary Eaton Baker's Wicked Awesome Website this morning. Building bridges.

In crisis theory, the way it works is simply this. It is about building a bridge that will hold your weight.

We all have ways of coping with stress. Most of the time they work. When they no longer work for a person, or a city, you enter a period of crisis, which is characterized by two things-- a rise in energy, often dramatic; and a push towards some sort of resolution.

There are really only three ways a crisis can resolve. You can get your balance back, and restore the old ways of coping. The downside to this is that you are embracing a system for coping that has already failed. Another failure is inevitable, you've just pushed the problem into the future. Kind of like putting sick leave buy-back on the table when you have no money for raises.

The second option is to adopt new coping mechanisms, new ways to approach problems. When you think about it, there are really only two ways you can try to resolve a crisis by using new coping mechanisms. You can adopt mechanisms that are self-destructive, like drinking, suicide, social withdrawal, acting out, having a tantrum, electing the lesser of two evils, convincing yourself that it doesn't matter, they're all the same, and so on. You get the picture.

The final option is to channel that energy into finding new ways to resolve problems. Constructive, empowering; thinking about the problems in a new way.

Building bridges, for example.

A small group of people from the city side and the school side have been quietly talking about our fiscal crisis, and the impact it is having on the schools, and we've come to some interesting, consensual conclusions.

The Schools are symptomic of the problems faced by the City, and solving the problems of the Schools without looking at fundamental changes in how this City does it's business (Ed Cameron's calls for municipal reform) won't fix things for very long.

The answers are out there; we lack leadership.

The answers are complex, and we want simple.

The answers require some degree of sacrifice, and we want ours.

It will take a community to solve these issues, and our approach has traditionally been divisive, because it is too simplistic, and it plays to the least civil elements in our collective personality.

The quiet message of the Override was that YES people are pushy, SUV driving know-it alls; KNOW people are local yahoos who didn't make much of the schools when they were in them. The elderly came out to vote against the schools? Well, let's see what happens when they come to us for a debt exclusion for a senior center! It was about the Franklin's, for sure, but it was fueled by the socio-economic kindling of a City where more than 50% of the people living here as of ten years ago weren't born here.

We need bridge-builders. They share some very common qualities. They listen. They question everything, especially the status quo. They constantly try to find new ways of looking at the issues. They refuse to accept as justification for continuing a certain practice (say, contract negotiations), "Well, that's the way we've always done it."

They persevere. They keep their eyes on the prize. They have little time for petty, vindictive games. They respect process, and are inclusive and transparent. And most importantly, they don't carve up the town into liberal or conservative wards, they can see something that many can't, for some reason. That we probably agree on 85% of the issues, can find consensus solutions to 10% with real leadership, and agree to disagree on the remaining 5%.

I'm not sure what to call this group of "new" thinkers- there's nothing new about the way they think; many of their ideas defy categorization, as do they, come to think of it. They have a consistent set of principles through which they analyze an issue, and as a result, end up with solutions that range from conservative (in it's original meaning), to progressive and populist. Probably another key characteristic is that they don't presume to have the answers, but they have faith that they can be arrived at collaboratively. Finally, to a person, they simply are not afraid of the truth, of speaking it aloud, to the powerless and the powerful.

For now, I'm just happy to be a part of that dialogue. A few of us feel like we've been trying to figure this stuff out alone, when all the time there actually were other people doing the same dance at the same time.

And when this "movement" reaches critical mass, watch those old and dysfunctional coping mechanisms that characterize Newburyport civic life melt away.

Can I get an "Amen?"

We need bridge-builders. There are a few on the ballot this year; Mary Baker Eaton has a nose for them.

In some cases, it means returning people to their elected offices; in other cases, it means finding out whether an opponent can be a bridge-builder as opposed to an incumbent who is a divider.

We are the change. The people we choose to represent us are the tools of change. If we don't change, we will wither. Choose wisely, and vote for the city you want to see, and not the city we have become.

Winners and Winners...

Although I must express my disappointment that I didn't win, props to Al Gore, who often describes himself as the former future president, for winning the Nobel Peace prize. His ability to gather complex data and put it into a format that was clear and easily understood show all the hallmarks of a great teacher, and his refusal to believe that complicated issues can be resolved by a simple YES/KNOW framework should be a great inspiration to us all.

Ironically, he is sharing the award with the UN-based Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. The latest research, as was predicted by NASA scientist James Hansen, whom our government tried unsuccessfully to censor, is wrong about global warming.


The Arctic Ice Cap is not melting as per their computer models. It is melting faster. The melt so far is decades ahead of what the computer model predicted.

I wonder if our house assessment will change if our house on Lime Street becomes beachfront property?

I also wanted to mention another, more local hero. Dr. Ralph Orlando has attended virtually every School Committee meeting for the past two years, has never shirked an opportunity to challenge us, and has worked cooperatively with anyone interested in finding funding for the schools. He is on the revenue task force, and has worked up a terrific power point presentation that takes the complex and breaks it down to manageable chunks. More than that, he has identified some reasonable areas within the current Chapter 70 formula where simple changes of how Newburyport is categorized can result in more funds for '09. He will be giving this presentation at the Education Forum on October 17th.

When Dr. Orlando speaks, people listen. He has been a major force on the state level, because of his unique access to those making the decisions, relationships cultivated during his many years of work with veterans.

Dr. O is a terrific example of community engagement that challenges and works with the real world to bring about meaningful change.

Another Faux Endorsement

I know John Kerry. I like John Kerry. But Newburyport, I'm no John Kerry.

Let this be proof that I'm willing to fabricate endorsements from both sides of the aisle. I am an equal opportunity fabricator. I am a shameless equal opportunity fabricator. But at least I'm honest about it.

Executive Sessions

Summary: Menin offers a description of the uses of Executive Session, with an important caveat.

At the conclusion of many School Committee meetings, some one will make a motion to go into Executive Session for one of two purposes: contract negotiations or possible litigation; and that we will not be coming back out into public session (that the results of our Executive Session for reasons that will become obvious, are for the time being restricted to that session). A role call vote is taken, the community and press are ushered out of the room, and our discussion begins.

Consistent with Ed Reform and existing laws, the term "contract negotiations" refers to any dialogue we are having relative to negotiations for the teachers or other union contracts; assisting the Superintendent in setting parameters for administrative raises (the Superintendent hires and evaluates all administrators), negotiating and hiring the Superintendent, and recommending and negotiating any raises with the Assistant Superintendent, pending a recommendation by the Superintendent. It may also refer to contract talks ongoing with sub-contractors. Once the Committee has made these decisions, they become part of the public record.

"Litigation" refers to ongoing or potential legal issues we may face; Special Education, athletics, Union grievances, etc.

There are no other items discussed at these sessions, no other votes taken. Often, these meetings end up with no decisions being made- they are simply informational. There is no discussion of how we will "frame" vote, and no deliberation as to how we will vote if the decision is one that we are required to make as part of a public session.

Once any items discussed at these meetings have reached their "statute of limitations," that is they have been resolved, it is my understanding that notes of the Executive Sessions become a part of the public record; that is certainly worth double-checking however, I could be wrong there.

One final note on SC decisions made in Executive Session, as well as those made in public session. School Committee rules require that once the vote is taken, the outcome is adopted as a decision made by the full Committee and enforced as such.

Let me put it another way.

Do not assume that any decision made in Executive Session was made unanimously. We have had some mighty stormy discussions, some very close votes in Executive Session. I have found that the "intimacy" of Executive Session and the nature of the decisions we are limited to making allows for some very candid and wide-ranging consideration of the issues and their long-term impact.

You can usually tell by the looks on our faces where we stood on the decision when it is announced in public session.

Running For... (Length Warning!)

Summary Paragraph: In which Menin talks about the two ways to run for elective office, and asks you to remember that this is only his opinion. But he also points out that he's a goody two-shoes with a failing memory, which makes him less likely to lie or shade the truth because he wouldn't be able to keep his story straight.

When I first ran for School Committee in 2000, I had a negative reason for running; that is, I ran against the status quo. Four of us ran for 3 seats; I didn't run against them. I ran against the School Committee as it was then operating. Those of you have been in the community since the 90's may remember those days; a refresher for you if you don't remember or if you weren't here.

That School Committee was composed of bright, hardworking individuals who cared about the School system. It was proud of it's work to pass the High School override, It had, as a body, hired one Superintendent, Cappy Smith, but had also made it clear that Smith, who was a visionary in many ways, was not going to be rehired. Between the election and the inauguration of a new majority of School Committee members (three Committee members and a new Mayor) the outgoing School Committee felt the need to relieve the incoming majority of the responsibility of hiring a new Superintendent, and hired Mary Murray. This only reinforced the community perception of the School Committee as aloof, disinclined towards transparency, and controlling of the agenda. Oh, and the habit of making appointments as you headed out the door, tying the hands of the incoming elected officials, is really a hallmark of those particular folks. It has happened repeatedly over the past six years.

So I ran to change that. I ran against that. And although I didn't personalize it, I made it very clear that while the majority would rule, they would not have a silent minority to contend with.

I had garnered a reputation writing for the Undertoad, and through community activism, and I finished 3rd in a field of 4.

So I joined the School Committee as the only seated educator, with a chip on my shoulder, a Saul Alinsky orientation to institutional change, and a legal pad full of ideas. And while I wasted no time in offering critical feedback to procedures and Committee processes, it was always constructive- that is, if I said this didn't work, I'd always suggest something that might be an alternative.

Unexpectedly, I found myself working more closely with Dick Sullivan, who had run for similar reasons. We agreed to second one another's motions, and for the first time in years, were able to promote a dialogue within the Committee about a wide range of issues. There things we didn't agree on, but we always felt the community had the right to have everything deliberated in public session.

We moved from a single session of Public Comment to several, and we introduced Public Conversation, which encouraged people from the community to raise concerns with the Committee publicly in the form of a dialogue- you ask a question publicly, you get an answer publicly. The budget process acquired more structure, and connection with the School Improvement Plans as a way to ensure that we were moving forward with some feedback from the School community. More hearings were held, and more dialogue began to happen between the School Committee and the public at those hearings.

That School Committee deserves credit for creating what has turned out to be model approach to creating clear policies that mark the limits and responsibilities of the School Committee and the Superintendent.

But my strongest memories of the first two years were struggling to pry open process, ranging from budget creation to adoption, finding ways to do business openly and engage the community at every possible point, and simply running into 5-2 votes repeatedly on what I would call back then "thinking outside the box" proposals for changing the system to promote learning and capture efficiencies. I remember that the School Committee self-evaluation just prior to my joining had one question regarding Public Communications- "did we get the Newsletter out in a timely fashion."

To this day, I am still discovering information that might have affected my vote back then, had it made it's way all the way around the table. Information is the currency of politics. And it seems to me that it was hoarded during my early years, and dispensed in a miserly fashion.

At one point, the School Committee representative to the High School Building Committee had to be publicly reminded that their role was our representative to them, and not their rep to us; and that timely sharing of information regarding the progress or lack thereof was expected.

Not only was the School Committee distrusted, it seemingly had no insight into that fact, nor did it have any idea how to change that perception.

Over the last four years, there have been dramatic changes, in my opinion. Early votes on the School Committee felt to me orchestrated and pro forma, the outcomes predetermined, and the public debate limited to move things along. Now, while it may seem that we talk things to death, we have become the deliberative body the community deserves, and we are doing more due diligence about ideas and issues than at any time in my six years on the Committee.

We have made decisions over the past year alone that were never even allowed to be brought to the table as options to be explored; I remember my annual frustration at bringing ideas forward early in the school year, only to be told it was too soon to talk about them, and then bringing them back up during budget talks, only to be admonished that it was too late.

I have called that the tyranny of the agenda; it was exercised by the few to create a school system that reflected a passive, "insider" mentality.

But things began to change. The budget documents became more and more transparent every year. Budget hearings became longer, and more frequent, and much more animated with the opportunity for community input. Our budget choices, which were now limited to making cuts, were more painful for that, but it was the way the process should always have been conducted.

By the end of my first term, I still had a long list of things I wanted to see happen. And although I found myself consistently locking horns with the Superintendent about accountability issues, and curriculum decisions we were making that were driven by budget cuts, I felt there had been just enough changes in the status quo that I was now running for the SC, and not against it. I chose to run for the remainder of Vickie Pearson's term (two years), in part because I was very excited about the field running for the 3 available 4 year seats. In turns out that they were unopposed, and I drew an opponent in my race, which was fine.

I decided, as I had in my first race, I would't raise any money from the community to run, that I would self-finance. In the end, I was both in school taking Montessori training, and teaching during the day, so I had little time for traditional campaigning. My opponent was also managing the Mayoral race being made by Donna Holaday. For every sign she had, I had none. For every brochure, again, I had none.

I eked out a win, pretty much winning every ward. Later, when I asked people in the community why they thought I had succeeded, they told me that they didn't agree with me at times, but they felt I would reliably confront issues and could be counted upon to find ways to get the community involved in the decisions, whether that was through feedback or spending a lot of face-time out there, before and after meetings, or when I would meet people on the street. They saw me as reliably pushing for accountability throughout the school system.

I ran for the School Committee then, and not against my opponent, who, despite all her advantages, could simply not make a compelling case for my electoral removal, or for her own candidacy.

This year, much to my surprise, I am again running for School Committee. We have finally found the synergy that has been missing- a good balance of viewpoints, a visionary Superintendent, some very sharp and analytical minds, and a commitment to explore every idea from the point of view of it's affect on students.

There are three seats, six candidates. Good candidates. Four of them worked on the Override campaign, which I supported. They are all bright, energetic, and engaged. But the feedback I am getting from friends who have attended meet and greets, or met them door to door, is that they are running against the School Committee. We are indecisive, they say, or we have been slow to act. We can do better.

Of course we can, and we will. I have spent the last two years serving on a School Committee that didn't have the answers prior to the discussion; that as we agonize over each decision, it is happening in real time, without choreography, without back room chatter.

I feel my fellow candidates confuse jumping to conclusions without due diligence, or driving to a decision that is made before full deliberation, with indecisiveness.

There's an old Yiddish saying, one that seems apropos- "A goat has a beard, but that doesn't make it a Rabbi." One person's indecisiveness is another's insistence on due diligence.

In effect, their argument is throw the bums out; it is merely coincidence that I am the only bum running for re-election. And people wonder why I'm the only person since 1997 to run for re-election to the School Committee. In some ways, I don't blame them; I ran that way once as well.

Life isn't that simple. If you want to throw the bums out, you need to make sure that all those ejected are bums. You need to be sure that there is no value to re-electing a candidate who has six years experience, is a licensed educator with classroom experience, has lived through six budget cycles, worked with three Superintendents, fought against many of the cuts and the framework in which those cuts were being considered, pro-actively advocated reconfiguration six years before we were forced to do it. You need to make sure that this community is better off losing one of only two members who have sat at the negotiating table with the NTA. You need to make sure that the relationships established with elected officials outweigh those of former elected officials when it comes down to getting city and state money we need for the schools. That is called due diligence.

It's easy to paint with a wide brush; it covers a lot of things. In baseball and football, they have a saying, when you come to play, you leave it all on the field. You hold nothing back. That's how I've approached my responsibilities as a member of the School Committee. I leave it all on the table.

Finally, the surpassing irony is that several of my fellow candidates have sought and have the active support of the very people who were dominating the School Committee when I ran against the status quo six years ago. Talk about back to the future.

So it comes down to this. Either I have changed into a passive, co-opted, insider, who no longer fights stupid curriculum cuts and the misguided emphasis on buildings to the detriment of our academic programs; who mistrusts the public because they don't know as much as I do, or I'm still the same abrasive, creative, irreverent pain in the ass I have been for six years.

And I may have been a pain in the ass, but I have always been on the side of the kids, of accountability, of making hard decisions with an eye on the future; and I have a public record proving it. I don't think I've changed. Nor do I think I will.

I will support another override if and when it is needed, but I believe there are a number of things we can do as a community before we get there, and that we can lessen the burden on seniors when we do.

To repeat- the schools are in desperate need of an infusion of cash, quickly, for the '09 budget, but I'm an no longer convinced that putting all of our eggs in the override basket is the only way to go. Other options exist, and will require difficult decisions, ones we haven't really confronted yet. But they are there; and can be made by a community that isn't as polarized as we are now.

So look for consensus builders up and down the ballot this election day folks, and leave the ideologues on their soapboxes. We gonna need a lot of listeners and sanity in the next coupla years.

Oh, and in case anyone asks, people on both sides of the funding issue still think I'm a pain in the ass, so I must be doing something right.

A Hero Passes...

I was thinking the other day about a book I read a very long time ago, allegedly written by Mickey Mantle, about heroism. It was patterned after JFK's Profiles in Courage, but the part that stuck with me all my life was a special kind of heroism, the true moral compass, the heroism that happens all around us every day that doesn't glitter, or call attention to itself. The willingness to risk something of yourself financially, emotionally, reputation-wise, to do what you know to be the right thing. That kind of heroism happens all the time to people who wouldn't dream of equating it with heroism.

We've also really tortured the word mercilessly. Baseball players hit heroic home runs, movie stars save the world heroically; the idea of heroism has been cheapened by the culture. Why else would we even tolerate radio commentators calling Iraq veterans who are voicing their doubts on our Iraq policies "phony soldiers." Were they shooting fake bullets? Were their injuries cured by simply taking off the make up? My belief is that they served their country, as they were honor-bound to do, and their experience in doing so was an epiphany, something they never expected to realize- wrong place, wrong time. I thought going there to fight was heroic, while I opposed the reasons for intervening; but having done that and tried to tell America to look at what we are really accomplishing there-- now that is courage.

Lt. John Withers, because he was in the middle of pursuing a PhD, went into the Army in 1944 with a commission and the responsibility for commanding a group of men who literally traveled across the U.S. and Europe for deployment in segregated vehicles. The Lt., and his command were black, the army policy was segregation. And the soldiers in his command were given the stick end of the jobs- supplies,cleaning, cooking, digging graves.

Many of Withers' troops were illiterate; he taught them to read and write, and wrote letters for them. He was well-liked and respected.

After they had been at their station for several months, a soldier in his unit confessed to breaking an order. He told Withers that, despite the Army policy that there should be no contact with the survivors of any of the concentration camps, for fear of pestilence, his unit had taken in, and was hiding two survivors. They were sick, and hungry, and the arrangements made up to that point by the Allies for handling the situation amounted to little more than they had experienced in the camps. Withers, inclined to send the men back to the Refugee camp, asked to have the two men, affectionately named Peewee and Salamon by the soldiers who couldn't pronounce their real names, brought to him.

He saw the condition they were in, and countermanding orders and risking an honorable discharge, which would forfeit access to the G.I. Bill to finish his education, he agreed that keeping them and sustaining them until their health had returned was the right thing to do.

They spent a year with his unit, ducking higher command when there were inspections. All of the men developed great affection for one another.

An entire unit, and their commanding officer risked their careers to perform a simple act of decency. They never thought twice about it. I think I understand a little bit more about courage each time I hear these stories. Courage is when you don't believe you have a choice, the thing you need to do is so blatantly obvious.

Lt. Withers, Ph.D., passed away on Sunday. There is a lot more to this story, which was captured by the Wall Street Journal article to be found at this link:

http://isurvived.org/InTheNews/WSJ-folder/wsj-article-112503.html

My Great Aunt Salka Hilsenrath, my Great Uncle Shulim Hilsenrath, and my two cousins, Henik and Jumek; Great Uncle Jakob Rosenberg, my Great Aunt Heniah Rosenberg, and my other cousin Henik Rosenberg could easily have been the beneficiaries of the human decency so abundant in Lt. Withers and his unit, abundant despite their status as second class citizens and soldiers.

But as my personal research is beginning to reveal, and has been chronicled in an astonishing book called Lost, by Daniel Mendelsohn, they probably never made it much farther than the fields surrounding their small town, Stryj, where they were executed and tossed into mass graves they themselves dug.

About 1,100 people who fought in World War II die every day. Most of them, who struggled to find the words during their lives to talk about it, were heroes, or did heroic things that we will never hear about.

I always tell kids not to look for heroes in the movies or the comic books. Find them all around you, they are abundant, and blissfully ignorant that they are heroes. They are a 21 year old survivor of muscular dystrophy publicly confronting Mitt Romney on his opposition to medical use of marijuana, which was recommended by five of his treating physicians; they are Al Decie and Gloria Braunhardt, standing up for the environment against both government and corporations; they are the teacher who somehow finds a way to connect an autistic child to the world in a meaningful way; and that child, working against a stacked deck with support services, trying day after day to discover meaning and linkage with others, that child is my hero. Those are the moral values we should be teaching and showing in the Schools and on the School Committee.

David Bowie was right. We can be heroes. We need to be them, recognize them, and spend less time expecting them to be someone else.

FLASH: All Menin Signs Reported Stiil In Place

As of 9:30 PM, all Menin signs that are spread out across the City are all present and accounted for. The moratorium appears to be holding. I'll keep you updated.

Duck, it's another endorsement...

Open season on School Committee members. Big prize for bagging the only one who's run for re-election since 1997.

The Endorsements are coming in, folks...

As they arrive, I will be posting messages from some people who are supporting my campaign.

Actually, while I have been discovering more widespread support than I expected city-wide ("I may not always agree with you, but you've always fought for the kids, and given the politicians hell!"); these captioned endorsements are totally fabricated. They are make believe. In fact, I might not want the endorsement of some of these folks. But you have to admit they have some appeal.

Any press is...

A quick Thank you to Steve of the Daily News, who managed to capture just enough of my babbling to make sense in his article on political blogging in Newburyport.

The piece also directs you to three other active blogging sites; blogging meaning more along the lines of dialogue and reader participation. Those three others are listed in my neat sites column on the left of the page; they belong to Mary Baker Eaton, whose finger on the pulse of Newburyport is so accurate she should be a Nurse Practitioner; Ed Cameron, continually making sense out on Ward 4, and Tom Salemi, whose apolitical (so far) approach gives him a wide latitude of things to write about.

This is a brave new world, after all.