John Moak's New Gig

Nashoba Publishing has the details on John Moak's new contract with Pepperell. Go here.

Highpoints

* Three-year deal
* $94,000 per year
* Starts Jan 4.
* He's going to oversee IT functions as well as administrative, not sure what that means.
* No salary increasee for 18 months. Beyond that there is a performance based 0 to 2 1/2 percent option.
* His employment can be terminated if Moak seeks another job within the first two years of the contract.


Can we get the last one for our Superintendent?

Mr. Moak's New Neighborhood

Gillian Swart is reporting that John Moak accepted the job in Pepperell, no real surprise. She was too polite to ask about salary, but the guess is he'll come close to if not top $100,000, not a bad bump from his current $62,500.

I thought we should all get to know our Mayor's new professional home. I considered taking a trip to Pepperell where I'd interview town leaders, average joes, regular janes (Wrangler Jane if she's available) and return with a concise, yet insightful report.

But I realized the comments section from the Lowell Sun article announcing the job offer to Moak would be just as illuminating, so here you go.

Lots of comments, 26 in all, I particularly enjoyed the suggestions that our mayor is some kind of fast-talking Harold Hill, who pressured the selectmen into offering him the job by mentioning the other potential job offers. Sounds a lot like...someone else's mayor.

In fact, one commenter refuted a section of an earlier article--the one I linked to initially that quoted Moak as advising Pepperell's selectmen to act quickly because he was considering other positions. The commenter reported that Moak actually said that he had no other offers and would move on if Pepperell declined.

I'd say the overall tone is positive, but Moak is clearly stepping into a battle between native and newcomers. It appears as if he'll be seen as an agent of the change, again, doesn't sound a lot like our mayor, who enjoyed particularly strong support from old timers in these parts. (And newcomers as well, no doubt.) He also got a plug from someone calling themselves Clipperpride.

As an aside, notice that I never once called these commenters--bloggers--because they are not. Bloggers have blogs.

Moak Joins Casino Effort

Weird coincidence. I don't normally read Steve Bailey's columns. I mean I should. He's great, but I just don't.

But I did this morning because I hate the idea of bringing casinos to Massachusetts. So does Bailey and he raises some serious questions here. (I am, btw, a fan of casinos.)

I had thoughts of posting something on the blog, but didn't really see a Newburyport connection. Until I got a friend from an email with the following taken from a Boston Globe article:

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Coalition for Jobs and Growth announced this morning that three new mayors and a prominent union have joined their campaign to support the governor's casino proposal.

The new members include Mayor James Harrington of Brockton, Mayor Mark P. Hawke of Gardner, Mayor John F. Moak of Newburyport, and the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, a union representing over 12,000 union fire fighters across the Commonwealth.

“For too long, Massachusetts has been losing revenue to other states; now it’s time to harness that growth for the Commonwealth,” said Harrington of Brockton. “We need more jobs with good wages and benefits — not to mention increased funding for local aid.”

A month ago, Mayor Moak told the Globe he was holding off on his support until he is sure that "all communities get a fair share" of any revenues generated.

I guess he got those assurances.

Me, I'm still not convinced the potential revenue doesn't come at a much higher cost. I realize times are tough and we can't rely on local property taxes. But the unintended costs of casinos just worry me.

This Isn't Helping

Yikes, we might be entering molehill into mountain territory. But hey, I'm not the one who made the molehill. Perhaps I'm helping with the mountain a little bit, but so be it.

But today's follow up to the private meeting between Developer Steve Karp and the City Council didn't exactly help clear the air. First, the Daily News got in touch with Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron (Friend and neighbor) and he told them he's not coming to the private meet-and-greet as well. I disagree with Ed's assertion that the meeting doesn't violate the open meeting law, but I agree with his overall point to Stephen Tait.

Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron said he also will not attend the session, arguing a private meeting does not send the right message to the public.

He also said he doesn't see the point in meeting with Karp and New England Development if the councilors cannot ask the development team questions about its intentions.

"I just don't think it is a good use of time for council," he said. "I don't see the need for a social gathering. I'm not looking to make friends. I'm looking to do the city's business. This sort of private reception is not going to give people confidence about the process."

He's right.

What's going to go further erode that confidence is John Moak's condemnation of Larry McCavitt as a "bully." I don't know Larry McCavitt. I met him only once about 10 years ago. But as an observer of the scene I don't see a vigilant--or even over vigilant--councilor as a bully. I see him or her as doing their job. Frankly, I'm not that worried about Steve Karp getting bullied. He can handle himself.

Looking beyond the name calling, the mayor's comments demonstrate that he and I have a different interpretation on the role of government in this matter.

Moak said McCavitt's opposition is little more than a bullying tactic to get his way.

"He is a bully," Moak said. "He tries to use his interpretation of the law to bully people into things he wants them to do."

The mayor said McCavitt uses his tactics "constantly" in situations ranging from economic development to planning issues. But Moak said "when it comes to (Karp and waterfront-related) issues, it is so obvious."

Moak said McCavitt uses government and laws to press people into compliance.

"I don't care what it is: Larry McCavitt likes to try to bully people into being fearful," he said. "The world isn't all about government. The world is about making a living and having government as part of it. Government is not the only thing that drives our existence."

In John Moak's defense, what's particularly sticking in my craw is the paraphrasing of his belief that McCavitt "uses government and laws to press people into compliance." But the direct quotes from the mayor seem wholly consistent with paraphrased point.

Well, I certainly hope McCavitt uses government and laws to press people into compliance." That's the entire point of government isn't it?

I'm all for people making a living as long as our government officials ensure that the will of the people--as represented in the bylaws and zoning written and approved by our representatives--is enforced. No doubt, John Moak feels the same way. I suspect he'd like to retract or rephrase those comments.

Perhaps Larry McCavitt does have a particular issue with Steve Karp. It's more likely he's got heightened concern about anyone looking to build along the water. I don't know but I don't really care. As long as he's working with the laws I don't really have too much of an issue.

The irony of course is the private meeting was supposed to work toward ironing out potential personal conflicts. But the effort connect names with faces has done nothing to improve that relationship.

And it has also created a controversy and a fight when one wasn't really necessary.

Still, I'm looking forward to a productive meeting tomorrow night. Let's keep things positive. I don't really blame Karp for any of this unless he's insisting on this private meeting.

A Great Start

Mayor Moak gave an interesting annual address to the Chamber of Commerce last week, promising everything from paid parking to an open water front.

Who is this guy?

I mean word on the street was that the Mayor saw the wisdom in establishing a system of paid parking downtown, but he'd done little to further the idea in his first term. In fairness, he has always maintained that he had to focus his attention and time to fixing the budget. But I always hoped for a wee bit of multi-tasking since the budget may never be fixed, not completely at least. (He did provide some encouraging words on the money side as well. Read more here in Gillian Swart's Current article.)

As for the Waterfront, if you read some of the earlier criticisms written of the then-new Mayor he couldn't pave over the waterfront fast enough. Hell, it sounds as if he had steamroller idling in front of city hall and trucks full of asphalt on the way, with each vehicle being driven by a representative of the so-called "conservative" block. (That means folks who have lived here a very long-time.)

But none of this is consistent with his speech.

First the parking. The mayor predicted that the city will have a paid parking system in municipal lots by the end of the year. Furthermore, according to the article, the mayor suggested the city will need a parking [structure] "at some point."

So paid parking AND a lukewarm pledge for a parking garage? Hmm, smells like progress to me. I've gone over my feelings on paid parking before. See here and here. We, as a city, are leaving money on the table by not charging for parking downtown. Not only are we missing out on the revenue generated by parking fees, but the current free-for-all downtown encourages abuse as folks, including myself, roll the dice hoping to sneak a few extra hours over a three hour limit.

(Note to parking enforcement officers. I drive a ... high-end, luxury ... um...sports car. Yeah that's the ticket. A convertible. Yeah, yeah..um...a BMW. No wait, a Jaguar. Yes, a black one. So be on the look out.)

A comprehensive paid parking system not only would tap our many visitors for a wee bit of walking around (and fixing our roads) money, but it also would free up parking spaces by putting loiterers like me (and you, let's be honest) on notice. There are a myriad of other benefits as well

Do you agree, Mayor Moak?

“We believe that we need to implement paid parking,” Moak said, adding that it will not only raise revenue for the city but will discourage people from parking too long in spots with time limits. “We are two percent below the budget level we need to sustain good services. We as a community will have to step up to close the gap.”

Apparently, he does. I didn't think we were always in agreement. Back during the campaign, I recall a question about a parking garage being asked during the debate at the Middle School. In fact, I wrote about it then.

Does the city need a parking garage?
John Moak: No. The Waterside group must build the infrastructure to handle all the parking generated by their project. Talked about partnering with Waterside on a public private garage if necessary. Also identified Prince Place as a possible site of a parking garage if we did need one.

Now, this is my synopsis of his answer. Were there nuances that I missed? I don't think so but if someone disagrees with my summary give a shout. In the answer the Mayor does talk about partnering with the Waterside Group. He also leaves the door open for a parking garage at Prince Place, which is a location that I favor (and I'd been told he favors as well.) However, I've been told building a garage back there would be a logistical nightmare.

Bottomline, the answer didn't give me a lot of hope that we'd see talk of a garage and paid parking this early in the next term. But here we are.

That's not to say I'm 100 percent on board with his plan. As someone pointed out to me, a system that only charges people to parking in the Green Street lot will only encourage cruising around the city streets for free parking, thereby adding congestion.

Seems to me a more comprehensive plan is necessary. We need to charge for street parking as well. Plus, we may have to deal with a system to handle any overflow spilling out into residential neighborhoods and the Tannery.

But all this certainly sounds like a step in the right direction. Good stuff!

I'll address the Waterfront in the next post.

Will the NHS Stadium Be Done in Time?

Save the date, Steve Karp's coming to Newburyport on March 13, according to Gillian Swart at the Current.

The article:

Stephen Karp will be in town to meet with anxious citizens at a public forum Thursday, March 13, Mayor John Moak confirmed Thursday.

Ever since New England Development, Karp’s real estate development company, bought up most of the waterfront/downtown properties two years ago, Karp has been a no-show in the city. He also has consistently refused to speak to the media about his development plans for Newburyport.

Moak said in his inaugural address in early January that the fears around development of Waterfront West had to be quelled. Planning Director Nancy Colbert and Moak have apparently convinced Karp he needs to come to Newburyport.

“We think it’s a good idea,” said Colbert. “I think it will be a good night.”

Colbert said during the forum the city will introduce the New England Development team and both sides will talk about the planning process. There will be no discussion of specifics but Colbert said, “I would expect them to talk about considerations they’re thinking about for their property.”

The location of the forum has yet to be determined due to the expected large number of attendees, Moak said, but Colbert said they are looking at the auditorium at Rupert A. Nock Middle School. The time is also yet to be determined.

From my quick reading of this I can't tell whether or not the presentation will allow for audience questions. God, I hope so or else this might not sit well with the general populace.

The structure of the hearing sounds a bit limited to me, and I still think Karp needs to mingle a bit with the masses including the unscrubbed folks like myself who have no financial or political stake in the actual outcome.

But I give Karp credit for coming as well as Moak and Colbert kudos if they truly convinced him to come up here.

March 13 is a Thursday night so I'll be home watching Survivor. But tell me how things go. I'm kidding. I wouldn't miss this for the world. (Survivor is usually bumped to Wednesday by the NCAA tournament anyway.)

If there is no opportunity for questions, we'll take some more here as we did a way back.

I'll print out a copy of the blog and mail them to his office before the meeting.

Nice bit of detail by the Current.

Cause and Effect

With all the talk of Plum Island, I didn't get a chance to write about the green energy initiative put together by Mayor Moak.

The Newburyport Energy Advisory Committee met on Wednesday to, in the words of the press release, "study, evaluate, and make recommendations to the Mayor regarding energy conservation, energy efficiency and/or conversion to greener energy sources. This mission is consistent with an August 2006 resolution passed by the City Council in support of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."

Ari Herzog from the Mayor's office has a report in his blog here. He also links to an article in this week's Current.

No doubt, this is a good move by the mayor. The plight of Plum Island focuses our immediate attention on the effect of global warming, and it should. Did you see the Page 1 photo in today's Daily News? But it's wise to pursue a long-term strategy to cut energy use while saving money as well.

Read the articles if you need more, but I did want to point out one noteworthy item that didn't hit me until I read Gilliant Swart's piece.

Former Mayoral Candidate Jim Stiles sits on the committee. Now I know I'm new to town and therefore chock full of political naivete, so perhaps there's some deeper machination that I'm missing.

But my first and lasting impression, until someone convinces me otherwise, is it's a classy move by Mayor Moak to appoint his former political rival to the committee. And it's equally classy for Stiles to serve.

One Judge's Scorecard

Stephen Tait at the Daily News does a nice job covering last night's mayoral debate between Jim Stiles and John Moak so I won't duplicate the effort.

But I thought I'd try something different. Instead of telling you what was said, I'll tell you one person's opinion on who won this bout.


I liberally paraphrased the questions and can't give you a blow-by-blow account of the questions. But here's my take on last night's debate. I tried to award points for technical performance (the quality of the answer) but I'd be lying if I told you I didn't also reward style (in other words opinions that matched mine.)

In short, this was my gut feeling on the questions.

If you have your own scorecard supply it in the comments. If you think I'm a loser for taking the the time to write all this out, you're probably not alone but feel free to add that comment as well.

Most importantly, if you feel a position has been misrepresented let me know.

Round 1: If you met with Steve Karp, what would you tell him you'd like to see on his property.
Stiles: Focused largely on opening the process. Said the project should fit into the community.
Moak: Indicated in his answer that he has met Steve Karp three times. Suggested a mixed use.
Winner: Moak wins for actually having met Steve Karp. The benefit of being the incumbent.

Round 2: What would you do to fix Crow's Lane?
Moak: Largely--and justly--blamed New Ventures, the vendor, for fighting the town over every single aspect of the project.
Stiles: Opened up by saying the agreement that Moak inherited stinks. Credited local residents for taking on the fight. Also raised the recent news that toxic materials from Winning Farm in Woburn could be dumped in Newburyport. He requested a copy of those dumping plans from the DEP and plans to have a professional review them.
Winner: Stiles for bringing up the latest news and showing initiative.

Round 3: What can we do to fix the infrastructure and increase services?
Stiles: Not a lot the mayor can do. Budget is tight but city should seek alternative revenue.
Moak: Talked about the plan for improving infrastructure that he submitted to the City Council. Revealed that he meets with a group of five financial professional in Newburyport to identify new budgeting and money management techniques.
Winner: Moak, again the power of the incumbent.

Round 4: Does the city need a parking garage?
John Moak: No. The Waterside group must build the infrastructure to handle all the parking generated by their project. Talked about partnering with Waterside on a public private garage if necessary. Also identified Prince Place as a possible site of a parking garage if we did need one.
Jim Stiles: Not clear if we need a full blown garage, but people want to move spaces off the waterfront. That needs to go somewhere. He advocated having the NRA determine is plans for the waterfront, incorporating that into a parking management plan and then moving forward.
Winner: Draw. I like the idea of building some thing with Karp and the Prince Place lot. But I recognize Jim is eager to get cars off the waterfront.

Round 5: What could have been done to prevent the closing of the Kelley School?Stiles: Said the move made financial sense but didn't necessarily work for the students or parents. Blamed Chapter 70.
Moak: Acknowledged the closing caused some pain but said the high school also took severe cuts. However, he was very encouraged by the new Grades 1-3 school configuration at the Bresnahan.
Winner: Moak. He focused on the positive.

Round 6: Should we have a city manager?Moak: He'd favor a four-year mayoral term and fewer city councilors. Said he's open to anything but he admitted it's a low priority.
Stiles: Personally he likes the city manager idea. But as mayor he promised to get a Charter Review commission started to identify the best measure.
Winner: Stiles, sounds like he'd actually do something to answer this question.

Round 7: What did you think of the proposal presented at last week's NRA Meeting?
Stiles: Too much parking.
Moak: Seemed okay to me.
Winner: Stiles. I agree with him.

Round 8: This is where candidates go to ask questions of each other. Neither seemed to draw blood with their questions. In fact, I think they were better at answering than asking.
Winner: Draw

Round 9: Is the school budget transparent enough?
John Moak: Better than it was, might not be transparent to all, but interested people will understand it.
Stiles: He thinks the budget needs more metrics to provide context, such as per pupil expenditures in other towns.
Winner: Stiles, introduced some new ideas.

Round 10: Do you support ban on chain stores?
Moak: No. Chain stores can add a lot if they bring the right attitude to the community.
Stiles: Favors a ceiling on the number or percentage of chain stores permitted downtown. Says we should learn from Nantucket.
Winner: Stiles. I think we should be open to the idea.

Round 11: What would you do with the Kelley School?
Stiles: Senior center, community center, and sale should be explored.
Moak: Laid out the steps he took to study potential uses for the plan. Says the intention is to keep it and preserve it, but it would be opened up to an RFP soon.
Winner: Moak. Sounds like he's acted responsibly.

Round 12: What are the three best changes and the three worst changes in Newburyport over the past few years?
Moak: Three positive changes: improvements at Port Plaza, conversion of multi-families along High Street into single family structures, and the energies that went into protecting against landfill.
Stiles: Positives: Rail Trail development and preservation of open space. Negatives: School budget cuts, Crow's Lane Landfill.
Winner: Stiles, although its nearly a draw because Stiles had time to think of an answer.

Round 13: Something about the historic commission having more control over the appearance of buildings in the city. I was contemplating Mike Lowell's contract situation.
Winner: Draw.

Round 14: What would you do to foster regionalization?
Moak: Big proponent of sharing services and equipment with other towns. Working toward that goal right now, cited example of Newbury police being able to respond to calls on the Newburyport side of Plum Island.
Stiles: Agreed with Moak. In that spirit he called Newbury's planning office when he heard the plans to build a senior center at the Little River complex. He asked about the potential of partnering with Newburyport on the effort, something that would help both towns. He said there was no interest(and they want our water and sewer for this project?).
Winner: Draw, both had great ideas. Teaming with Newbury on a senior center seems like a no-brainer to me.

Round 15: How would you improve relations with City Council?
Stiles: Would take a page from Mary Ann Clancy and call--or have a representative call--councilors each week. Keeps small fights from getting big.
Moak: Says the relationship can be rocky at times but it's working.
Winner: Draw

Final Score Card

John Moak: Four rounds
Jim Stiles: Six rounds
Draw: Five rounds

Stiles wins on the issues in a decision. But he may have needed a knockout.

Details would be nice

I didn't get to attend last night's candidates forum. (Frankly I wasn't quite sure if it was open to the public or just to folks at the condo complex where it was held, but that is beside the larger point.)

I was a little disappointed in the discussion around the waterfront. Seems like Jim Stiles tried to get things started with his opening salvo. I'm basing all my comments on the news article, btw. Find it here. But John Moak didn't pick up the challenge choosing, in his words, to focus on the successful elements of his first term.

I really hope someone takes the time to parse the details of the different Waterfront stances of the two candidates. Stephen Tait tried to do this here. (I hope this links to the article but I'm not sure if registration is required.) But I feel more can be done. What does 250 spaces look like on the waterfront? What about 150? Give us some graphics. Show us some details.

I guess this is an open letter to The News, but if the Current is up to the challenge go for it. I, of course, invite both camps to comment to this post.

I just need more info on this important subject. I think both sides took a different degree of hits from Letters to the Editor in the news. Janet Marcus leveled a pretty good blast against John Moak here. While Fred Hufnagel questioned some ideas that Jim Stiles raised here.

Disclaimer Number One: Politics plays a role in everything especially letters to the editor. I obviously can't verify every fact or statement in these letters. But I haven't seen any comments refuting the charges or addressing the concerns raised in either letter. I think that would be nice.

Disclaimer Number Two: As I've stated previously, I'm a less parking on the Waterfront guy. I don't necessary want wide open green space but I don't want too much parking down there.

I'll try to wrap this up, but all this blather leads me to a larger question which I'll address in a separate post.

Meanwhile, I'll attend future forums with an ear open for some answers and details.