For example, in the decades before the American Civil War, Lowell’s entire reason for existence was the production of cloth made from cotton harvested by enslaved people in the American south. Consequently, it was in the city’s economic interest to at least remain quiet about slavery in the United States. Yet Lowell also became a leader in the abolitionist movement. To read of the consequences of the Fugitive Slave Act in a textbook is one thing; to hear how people who previously lived in your neighborhood struggled with the law enhances your understanding of it.

At this Tuesday’s Lowell City Council meeting, we caught a glimpse of this dynamic again at work. Two emerging flashpoints in American politics – data centers and the surveillance state – were both discussed by the council.

The topic of data centers arose in a Division of Planning and Development response to motions filed by Councilor Rita Mercier (in July) and Councilors Belinda Juran and Kim Scott (in March) asking for the status of zoning changes intended to regulate data centers.

According to the DPD response, the city commenced a comprehensive review of its entire zoning ordinance 13 months ago with the assistance of a consultant, Community Scale LLC, which had experience with data centers from earlier work with the city of Everett. A steering committee composed mostly of city employees and officials was created to oversee the process and has met several times. This fall there will be community outreach events, neighborhood group meetings, and an online comment form to gather community input. (The much-publicized June 29, 2026, meeting on data centers at the Butler School was part of this.) The city and its consultants are also reviewing how other communities have regulated data centers ranging from outright bans to detailed regulations that seek to limit adverse impacts.

Finally, DPD hopes to “develop two regulatory options for consideration by the City Council” and that these are expected to be initially presented to the council this October with final action coming by the end of January 2027.

On the surface, this discussion was noncontroversial, but I sense a disconnect of expectations. There has been a longstanding need to overhaul and update the city’s zoning code. That’s a big undertaking and it was likely difficult for DPD to get council backing to do it since it would require a lengthy, disciplined strategic commitment whereas the council tends to be reactionary and operates on a week-to-week basis. However, rising neighborhood animosity towards the big Markley data center triggered a council reaction. Hence council interest in changing the zoning to stop data center expansion. Following the management principle of “don’t let a crisis go to waste” it looks like DPD used the data center furor as a wedge to get the council to look comprehensively at zoning.

However, I’m not sure the council is interested in a comprehensive look at zoning but instead seeks patchwork solutions to whatever complaints constituents bring to them this week, be it data centers, ADUs, or something else.

Then the neighbors around the Markley facility who are plagued by noisy diesel generators and other quality of life issues, want their complaints remedied immediately which is something a zoning change would be hard pressed to do since new zoning rules typically don’t apply retroactively.

But opposition to data centers transcends the neighbors living around the existing facility. Across the United States, we’re seeing widespread voter opposition to data centers. You know that’s the case because politicians from both parties who once supported data centers have pivoted to radical opposition to them.

I think this opposition is only partly grounded in concerns about the data centers themselves. The harm they cause to the quality of life of those living around them; to the electrical grid; to the water supply; and to the environment, all are factors. However, a bigger concern is artificial intelligence itself, both as a technology that will take people’s jobs but more importantly perhaps as a mechanism to further enrich and empower the billionaire class that owns and controls them to the detriment of ordinary citizens everywhere. I suspect that concern exists among the citizens of Lowell and is growing.

At the start of this newsletter, I mentioned that the council addressed two issues of national importance with one being data centers. The other, which came to the council almost by accident, involves the surveillance state in the form of invasive security cameras.

Among the usual claims for property damage and requests for handicap parking signs on the Petitions section of the August 25, 2026, council agenda was a petition by a resident to “address City council regarding AI police state camera system discussion.”

I’ve mentioned before that I don’t watch council meetings live but catch the replay on YouTube the next day. One of the reasons I do that is so I can fast forward through citizen petitions which are either routine or present issues that don’t make much sense to me.

However, contrary to my past practice, I watched this entire segment and, more significantly, agreed with everything the petitioner had to say. The petitioner delivers his remarks at 2:30:40 of the YouTube transcript of the meeting, however, he also submitted his proposed remarks to the city clerk as his petition and is therefore online as part of the agenda packed, so I’ll quote some of what was written in that document:

I am here today to discuss the Al Flock cameras that have been installed all around Lowell. . .

. . . I am not necessarily against the use of police cameras in high crime areas. The Lowell police has been using them for a few decades now. You may have seen them in parking lots outside of stores with the flashing blue lights on them. These camera systems are called CCTVs, or “Closed Circuit Television”, meaning that the video is being recorded and saved on local hard drives stored in the Lowell police station. When footage is needed, they can log into the local server and pull video when needed. It’s exactly how security cameras work in a bank or a store.

These Al Flock cameras are different; they’re always on and always watching. These cameras have the power to recognize license plates, car models, faces, driving routines, clothing, ethnicity, etc. Anything that you can determine with your eyes, it can as well.

These cameras have the ability to take in all this information about you, track your every move, stalk you, and build a virtual profile of you, and store it on Big Brothers computer. What can these profiles be used for?

Flock is a private, multi-billion-dollar company whose systems collect and store footage in data centers (hence the rise in demand by tech companies to have these centers built in your area). Tech giants do not make all their money from selling hardware or subscription services. They make their money from storing and selling data. . .

This is just the corporate business side of things. With Al and drone weapons, as well as government tyranny on the horizon, who knows what evil these cameras can lead to. . .

The petitioner ended by asking the council to (1) end the contract with Flock and remove all its cameras; and (2) let the people of Lowell decide if they want to be surveilled by a private company.

Flock Group Inc. which does business as Flock Safety, was founded in 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a privately held company that manufactures surveillance hardware and software. The company is valued at $7.5 billion, operates in 5,000 communities in 49 states and performs 20 billion scans of vehicles in the US each month. One of its primary initial funders was the billionaire Peter Thiel, who is co-founder of Palantir Technologies, a company that provides artificial intelligence and facial recognition systems to US security agencies and the military.

Flock has been much in the news lately and not in a good way. On August 28, 2026, the Lowell Sun reported that a Stow, Massachusetts, police officer resigned just before a disciplinary hearing in which he was accused of using the Flock Safety system multiple times “for no legitimate law enforcement reason.”

The same day, Wired magazine ran a story headline, “A Georgia Cop Used Flock to Track 2 Other Cops: His Ex and Her Friend.” The offending (now former) police officer used the Flock automatic license plate reader at least 56 times to track another officer with whom he had had an affair. He also used the system 29 times to track the vehicle of a third officer who was spending time with the former romantic partner. According to Wired, “. . . many [police] officers have instant access to Flock, a powerful, informative and invasive tool for tracking people’s locations. Across the country, there have been at least 45 documented incidents of police officers misusing Flock in order to look up or track current or former romantic partners.”

At Tuesday’s Lowell City Council meeting, after the petitioner spoke, councilors questioned Lowell Police Chief Greg Hudon who said that the Lowell Police Department has 25 Flock cameras around the city (and that DPD has Flock cameras intended to catch people illegally dumping). Chief Hudon said that the concerns expressed by the petitioner were well-founded, but the Lowell Police have procedures in place to limit Flock access to legitimate law enforcement purposes and an audit trail that helps ensure that’s the case. The Chief then emphasized how effective a crime-fighting tool these cameras are.

I think the Chief and most of the council were addressing concerns about rogue police officers tracking ex-spouses whereas the issue is much bigger than that. Councilor Juran understood the concern of the petitioner (and others, including me) when she said the problem was the aggregation of data collected by these cameras that would be used by others. She said that the use of the system by Lowell Police Officers was “the tip of the iceberg” and that Flock is using information collected by the cameras to identify people and potentially sharing that with others.

Chief Hudon replied that the Lowell Police have opted not to share data from the cameras, however, unless the system in Lowell is physically isolated from the Flock Company, the company and its technicians would still have access to the data notwithstanding any limits set by the Lowell user. With that access, who knows who else the data is being shared with.

Councilor Juran then moved to refer the matter to the public safety subcommittee for further discussion, but Mayor Gitschier suggested it might be best to hold that discussion in executive session since it might disclose strategies for fighting crime. The city solicitor said it would be more appropriate to do it in an executive session of the entire council rather than just the subcommittee, so that’s what is going to happen.

Councilor Juran’s concerns, like those of the petitioner, are well-founded and widely documented. For example, Wired has also reported that regulators in Illinois discovered last August that Flock had violated state law by running a now-paused pilot program that handed Customs and Border Protection access to cameras in the state. The magazine also reported that a police officer in Texas searched more than 83,000 Flock cameras across the country last year while searching for a woman who had a self-administered abortion.

The modern surveillance state has been with us for years now. If you search online for a new pair of sneakers, for the next 72 hours you are bombarded with ads for sneakers from every website and platform you visit. For the most part, it’s easy to dismiss this as the price we pay for internet access.

However, two things have combined to dial up the “I’m very concern about this” meter. First is the maturation and widespread deployment of artificial intelligence. Previously, there might be a lot of data about me floating around, but it would take someone a lot of time, effort and money to piece it together in a way that could be injurious to me. But AI changes everything. The super computers filling the data centers everyone is protesting can search, sort and combine billions of bytes of information in seconds and erase any expectation we have for privacy in our lives.

That those AI companies are owned by the same billionaires who crowded the front row in the U.S. Capitol rotunda on January 20, 2025, for President Trump’s inauguration only elevates those concerns. I’m fully convinced that the DOGE miscreants who burrowed into the Social Security Administration and Health & Human Services data bases walked away with digital copies of everyone’s financial and medical histories and also that that data is now being used in nefarious ways by the tech sector but also by a government that has shown its willingness to use every means available to punish its opponents and those whose race or gender don’t fit the regime’s narrowly defined norms. I’m sure Chief Hudon spoke in good faith when he said Lowell restricts outside access to the data collected by city surveillance cameras but believing that requires one to think the best of the AI companies and the billionaires who own them which is a leap of credibility that defies everything we’ve seen over the past 20 months. Since our elected representatives at the national level have been neutered (or worse) by the campaign cash flowing from these same billionaires, there is no hope for top-down protection from Congress. Consequently, it’s up to individuals in communities to speak out against this as part of a bottom-up effort to combat the growing authoritarianism we face. I’m not anti AI, but AI is just a tool that can be used for good or evil and right now, the balance is tipping the wrong way, so when it comes to data centers and surveillance cameras, I think the right path at the community level is to slam on the brakes.

****

Tuesday’s council meeting lasted 3 hours and 30 minutes, so other issues were covered and discussed, but I’ll halt my council coverage right now.

There will be no council meeting this Tuesday, which is also the day of the state primary election. In next Sunday’s newsletter, I’ll report on the results of the voting.

****

This week in Seen & Heard, I reviewed a great book that provided a British view of the American Revolution; reminisced about the glory days of local sports TV recounted in an article about Bob Lobel and Mike Lynch; reviewed the classic novel, The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton; and noted the obituary of Bill Rasmussen, a co-founder of ESPN.

****

I’ll be leading several Lowell history tours in the coming weeks for anyone who is interested:

Saturday, September 12, 2026, at 10am – Walking tour of the Tyler Park Historic District. The tour is free with no registration required. Just meet at the park. This tour is part of the Friends of Tyler Park “Autumn Market.” (For GPS purposes, Tyler Park’s address is 748 Westford Street.)

Saturday, September 26 & Sunday, September 27, 2026, both at 10am – Walking tour of Lowell Cemetery. The tour takes 90 minutes and begins at the Lawrence Street entrance to the cemetery. It is free and requires no registration. The same tour is offered on both days.

Saturday, October 17, 2026 – “Secrets of Lowell Cemetery” tour which is part of the of the Poe in Lowell Festival. Edgar Allan Poe came to Lowell at least three times to lecture but also to spend time with a female friend who is buried in Lowell Cemetery. Learn their story and the stories of others involved in their orbit. This tour is free and begins at the Knapp Avenue entrance of the cemetery (77 Knapp Avenue).

The council covered many topics with no single issue dominating the meeting. Consequently, here are some comments on a range of things covered that night:

Separate motions on the structure of council subcommittees, one by Councilor Belinda Juran and the other by Councilor Dan Rourke, were discussed together. A big challenge is scheduling and holding subcommittee meetings. Each subcommittee meeting requires someone from the City Clerk’s office to be present to take minutes and do all the other things the clerk’s office is responsible for. Also, subcommittee meetings typically require the presence of other city employees so their schedules and availability must be considered.

I also believe everyone values recording the meeting on video so residents who can’t attend the meeting can see what’s going on. Since two rooms at city hall – the city council chamber and the mayor’s reception room - are outfitted with cameras and recording capabilities, meetings must be held in one of them. However, subcommittees compete with the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Conservation Commission, the License Commission and other boards and commissions whose meetings are recorded.

Councilor Rourke identified the number of subcommittees as an obstacle. According to the city’s website, here are the current council subcommittees:

1. Arts & Culture/Special Events

2. Auditor & Clerk Oversight & Personnel

3. Cannabis Control

4. Economic Development

5. Environment & Flood Issues

6. Finance

7. Frontrunner City Program

8. Housing

9. Municipal Facilities

10. Neighborhoods

11. Non-profit Organizations

12. Parks & Recreation

13. Public Safety

14. Rules & Election Law

15. Senior Citizen

16. Substance Abuse

17. Technology & Utilities

18. Transportation

19. Veterans

20. Youth Services

21. Zoning

That’s 21 subcommittees, each with a chair and two members.

Councilor Rourke suggested the existing 21 could be consolidated into six subcommittees and that membership could be increased to five councilors (making the quorum needed to hold a meeting just three). He further suggested that if the council were to make its summertime two-meetings-per-month permanent, the off weeks could be used for subcommittee meetings.

Councilor Juran’s motion was directed to the Rules Subcommittee while Rourke’s was a suggestion to the entire council, so it’s unclear when these will return to a regular council meeting. Still, it will be interesting to hear further discussion of the pros and cons of this concept.

****

At the July 28, 2026, meeting the city council rejected City Manager Tom Golden’s request to transfer money to the city’s Health and Human Services Department so it can continue to pay its lease at 107 Merrimack Street. That night, the vote to make the transfer was seven in favor and four against so at first, everyone assumed it had passed. But someone immediately spoke up and said the transfer required a two-third majority to pass. That would have been eight votes. It only received seven, so the ruling was the transfer failed.

At this meeting, Councilor Sean McDonough, one of the four councilors to oppose the transfer back on July 28, had a motion to reconsider that vote. (A motion to reconsider can only be made by someone who was on the prevailing side of the original vote which McDonough was since he voted against the transfer.)

The discussion on the motion to reconsider unearthed multiple points of confusion. First, it seems that the original vote did not need a super majority to prevail but just a simple majority. With seven votes, it did achieve a simple majority so it should have been deemed to have passed that evening. When asked about the consequences of that, the City Solicitor advised that even though the original ruling on the need for a super majority was incorrect, no councilor challenged it that evening, so there was no recourse to now correct the ruling.

Next, both the city manager and the city solicitor suggested that the “cleanest way” to revisit this was for the city manager to bring the same vote back to the council at its next meeting. That prompted questions about the finality of council votes. If councilors vote against something, can it just be brought back repeatedly until a different result is achieved? That doesn’t seem quite right but wasn’t acknowledged as an impediment. (Perhaps the erroneous ruling on the first try distinguishes this issue.)

Then, the city manager explained that the contemplated move of the HHS department from 107 Merrimack Street to the city-owned building at 40 Market Street required negotiations with the union employees affected by the move since it would constitute a change in working conditions. I believe those negotiations have been scheduled but not held as of the August 11th meeting.

Finally, Councilor McDonough asked, if the same vote was coming back to the council anyway, was there a need to act on his motion to reconsider the original vote, or would it even be advisable to vote on the motion to reconsider. It seemed with no other way to dispose of the motion, a roll call was taken, and 10 councilors supported the motion to reconsider while none opposed it (Council Kim Scott was not at the meeting). I assume this means some of the councilors who opposed the transfer are now willing to support it, but one never knows until the next vote is taken.

****

Councilors were officially notified at this meeting that the Cambodia Town neighborhood of Lowell has been designated a Transformative Development Initiative (TDI) district by MassDevelopment. This is a program intended to help targeted commercial districts in Gateway Cities in Massachusetts.

The designation provides several types of support over its three-year existence. First, it funds a “TDI Fellow” which is a fulltime employee with economic development training who is assigned to the community to help coordinate between local government, small business owners, property owners, and nonprofits. Second, the TDI designation makes technical and planning assistance from the state available. Third, TDI provides funding and grants for storefront improvement, placemaking projects, and some financing.

The TDI program is highly competitive which makes it extra impressive that the city landed this one for Cambodia Town since Lowell was the beneficiary of a TDI designation for the Acre back in 2022. I won’t get into the details of all the benefits that brought except to confirm that it did bring many benefits to the Acre neighborhood, benefits that will hopefully be duplicated in Cambodia Town (which for those unfamiliar with the place, includes the Middlesex and Branch Street stretches near Clemente Park and Pailin Plaza and, I believe, Cupples Square.)

****

The council also received a report looking back on the employee layoffs that occurred in June. In all, 23 city employees lost their jobs which the administration calculates saved $1.9 million in the current fiscal year.

The report goes into considerable detail about the process that was followed, the timeline, and the factors considered in making the decisions. It also explains how most of the city budget comes from fixed costs that cannot be cut. This puts greater pressure on non-discretionary items such as salaries.

As for lessons learned, the report identified three. (Since I don’t fully understand exactly what two of them mean, I’ll include all three verbatim from the report):

• More frequent mid-year budget updates to departments to reduce the scale of year-end adjustments.

• Enhanced communication with unions and department leaders regarding fiscal conditions and potential workforce impacts.

• Additional cross-departmental workforce planning to minimize reductions in force.

Although I didn’t see it in the report, City Manager Golden explained that the abrupt notification of the effected employees was driven by the timing of the presentation of the budget to councilors. Someone realized at the last minute that since the proposed budget would omit the names of the employees who were being laid off, once the budget document became public, the absence of those employee names from the document would indicate that they were to lose their jobs. Since employees finding that out from the media or from seeing something online would be terrible, the administration speedily notified the employees in person on an accelerated timeline, hence the hurried nature of the notifications.

****

Another interesting report dealt with the procedure for making a claim for damage caused by a pothole or a plow. The report provides considerable detail on how to make a claim and what type of supporting documentation would help resolve the claim quickly.

Importantly, it states that if the damage occurred on a state-owned road, the claim must be presented to the state and not to the city. (Although the state is only liable for personal injuries, not property damage, so it would have to have been a very big pothole.)

****

A couple of other council meeting items to briefly note:

In a discussion on the state of upkeep of the UMass Lowell Inn & Conference Center, City Manager Golden mentioned that a challenge to finding a new use (and owner) of the property is that it’s “underwater.” In real estate, that usually means the property owner owes more money to its lender than the property is now worth. In this case, I think it meant the property is worth less now than when the University of Massachusetts Building Authority bought it. To confirm that, I looked at the numbers. In 2009, UMBA paid $14.8 million to the prior owner, LHG LLC. According to the city assessor’s website, the ICC is now assessed for $10.1 million (which is $4.7 million less than the state paid for the property 17 years ago). Golden added that the value deficit is a substantial obstacle to the redevelopment of the property.

Another issue was identified during a discussion of the recent Puerto Rican Festival which turned out to be less than the organizers had hoped due, in part, to communication problems with the city. I couldn’t follow all the details, but it seemed like the organizers had used the city’s online reservation website to reserve the dates, thought they had everything confirmed, and proceeded accordingly. However, there was an unpaid bill for police services at a prior festival, so the city did not deem the event reservation to be finalized because of that unpaid bill. But because of turnover among the organizers, the current group was unaware of the unpaid bill and was relying on the confirmed reservation from the website, hence the confusion. It seems like the city’s reservation system should flag past due bills to avoid a replay of this in the future.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reviewed a big new exhibit at the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts called “American Stories: Revolution to Rockwell”; I commented on a blog post on “Why the Backlash Against Data Centers is So Potent”; noted a NYT article on unacknowledged brain injuries sustained by crewmembers of Coast Guard life boats; reviewed a book on The Enlightenment (which I read because I feel our current national trajectory is dragging us back to the Middle Ages in many ways); and analyzed the consequences of adopting Daylight Savings Time during the entire year.

I’ll be leading several Lowell history tours in the coming weeks for anyone who is interested:

Saturday, September 12, 2026, at 10am – Walking tour of the Tyler Park Historic District. The tour is free with no registration required. Just meet at the park. This tour is part of the Friends of Tyler Park “Autumn Market.” (For GPS purposes, Tyler Park’s address is 748 Westford Street.)

Saturday, September 26 & Sunday, September 27, 2026, both at 10am – Walking tour of Lowell Cemetery. The tour takes 90 minutes and begins at the Lawrence Street entrance to the cemetery. It is free and requires no registration. The same tour is offered on both days.

Saturday, October 17, 2026 – “Secrets of Lowell Cemetery” tour which is part of the of the Poe in Lowell Festival. Edgar Allan Poe came to Lowell at least three times to lecture but also to spend time with a female friend who is buried in Lowell Cemetery. Learn their story and the stories of others involved in their orbit. This tour is free and begins at the Knapp Avenue entrance of the cemetery (77 Knapp Avenue).

While it’s important to be aware of the possibility of title theft, it is exceedingly rare. In my thirty years as register of deeds of the Northern District of Middlesex County, I only encountered three instances of it with only one of them being the type of crime contemplated by those who warn of title theft. (The other two instances involved fraud by a family member or a care giver.) Before addressing the Sun article and explaining some relevant legal concepts, I’ll start with brief summaries of the three real life deed fraud incidents I encountered. (With the caveat I’m just writing from memory and haven’t drilled back into the records for precise statements of the facts.)

****

The one true instance of “title theft” involved an elderly couple who lived in a suburban neighborhood. They had an adult child who lived in the region but not close by, although the child actively assisted in the care of the parents. Both parents eventually became disabled and relocated to care facilities and routine maintenance of the house was not done. Eventually, both parents passed away. Not ready to deal with the house, the adult child (the sole heir of the couple), held off on probating their estates. Real estate taxes on the house were paid, but not much else was done.

One day, a man walked into the registry of deeds and dropped off a deed to be recorded. The deed purported to convey this particular property from the parents to a third party. The deed contained what appeared to be the signatures of both parents, was notarized, contained the five or six other things required, and was accompanied by the necessary fee, so it was recorded.

At some point after that, the man to whom the property was conveyed called a local real estate broker and asked them to list the property for sale. Fortunately, the broker knew the history of the property including that the owners had died and that there was an adult child involved. Not knowing how to contact the adult child, the broker called the police who, because of frequent medical calls to the property in the past, still had the adult child’s contact information and got in touch.

The adult child immediately called the registry of deeds and spoke to me. Their story sounded credible and there was enough about the deed and other information I could find online to corroborate the adult child’s side of the story. I explained that while they should fully cooperate with the police who had promised to open an investigation, it was critical that they immediately hire a lawyer to file the necessary paperwork in court to begin unwinding the transaction.

A lawyer called me the next day on the adult child’s behalf. I provided copies of the deed that had been recorded and other relevant documents and explained all that I had been able to discover about the transaction. The lawyer promptly filed a lawsuit in Superior Court and obtained a lis pendens which is a notice of a lawsuit about the state of the title to property. Once the lis pendens was recorded at the registry of deeds, anyone who acted in reliance of that recent deed would be on notice that something might be wrong with it. Put another way, with the lis pendens on record, no legitimate buyer or lender would do business with the purported owner until the lawsuit was resolved.

Soon after that, the lawyer submitted affidavits to the court and obtained judgment in the form of a court order voiding the fraudulent deed. That order was recorded at the registry. With the fraudulent deed cancelled by the court order, the adult child was then able to probate their parents’ estates and dispose of the property however they wished.

I’ll explain some of the legal and procedural concepts involved in this story later in this essay, but for now let’s move onto a more common deed fraud scenario, one involving a family member.

****

Sometime in the 1960s, Mom and Dad purchased a home for themselves and their two children, a Son and a Daughter. Mom died at a young age, Daughter grew up, married and moved to another part of the country. As Son grew to adulthood, he remained in the family home with Dad. As Dad’s health declined, Son provided some level of care to Dad with both remaining in the home. Notably, Son had never held a job for very long.

Towards the end of his life, Dad went to a lawyer and had a will drafted and executed. The will left the house equally to Son and Daughter. However, the day before Dad died, he purportedly executed a deed transferring ownership of the house solely to Son. A few days after Dad died, Son recorded this deed at the registry of deeds.

A few months later, Daughter called the registry of deeds and asked who owned the house according to registry records. I spoke with her, told her of the deed from Father to Son, and sent her a copy of it. Before getting off the phone, Daughter insisted that the deed had to be fraudulent. I urged her to contact the police and to give the investigating officer my contact information, but more importantly, to hire her own lawyer to take appropriate civil action to protect her rights in the property.

When I was in law school, my teacher for Wills and Trusts, a nationally respected figure in that field, one day told us, “You learn a lot about a family when the surviving parent dies.” By that, he meant that siblings often disagree with the disposition of property by their parents. That observation of human nature is well-known to anyone in the legal field. So, while I didn’t dismiss this claim out of hand and sincerely urged Daughter to pursue it, nothing about this situation distinguished it from many other calls I had previously received from heirs disappointed by a parental bequest.

Except this one turned out to be different. Daughter was persistent, both with the police and with retaining her own lawyer. The lawyer filed a lawsuit seeking to void the deed. At the trial, Daughter’s lawyer got the notary public who notarized the deed to admit that he did not personally see Dad sign the deed. Notary was a friend of Son who came to Notary with the document, which was already signed, assured Notary that the signature was Father’s, said Father was feeling poorly that day, and asked Notary to notarize the document so Son could get it recorded. Notary complied and Son recorded the document.

Also at the trial, Son testified that Dad did in fact sign the deed just the day before he died and that everything he told Notary had been truthful. The judge didn’t believe him and ruled that the deed was void which meant that property ownership would be controlled by the will. (I assume Daughter included a claim for money damages against Son as part of this lawsuit, otherwise he would still end up with half the property notwithstanding his wrongdoing, but I don’t know for sure.)

A postscript of this case: About a year later, investigators from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office interviewed me in preparation for a criminal trial against Son for fraud. I heard nothing further about it until I randomly encountered one of the people who had interviewed me. They volunteered that Son had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced to a short (but still significant) sentence of incarceration.

****

The final case will be brief. It involved an elderly person in poor health who had moved from the home they owned into a long-term care facility. Elder had distant relatives who were in touch with Elder during their lifetime, but no family members that seemed especially close. Shortly before Elder died, a neighbor who had assisted the Elder in the care and upkeep of the home, came to the care facility accompanied by a notary public and had the Elder sign a deed that conveyed the property to Neighbor. The notary witnessed this and notarized the deed. Neighbor brought the deed to the registry of deeds and recorded it. Although the deed recited that Neighbor had paid $100,000 for the property, Neighbor had not done that by the time Elder died shortly thereafter.

Heirs of Elder vigorously questioned the propriety of this transfer. The police investigated and charges were brought against Neighbor. I don’t have the outcome of the criminal case documented; however, I found a deed on the registry of deeds website from several years after all of this took place. In this deed, Neighbor conveyed the property back to the lawyer for the estate of the deceased Elder. The deed states it was done pursuant to an agreement in a Middlesex Superior Court case, citing a criminal docket number. The property is now owned by an unrelated third party.

While we know what happened to the real estate, I don’t know for sure the ultimate disposition of any legal case, criminal or otherwise. However, I believe the prosecution’s theory was that at the time the deed was executed, Elder, because of their medical and mental state, was unable to exercise free will and that Neighbor had imposed their will on Elder.

I’ve been a lawyer for 40 years now. Regrettably, the only thing I see that’s unique about this case was the criminal prosecution because instances of elders being unduly influenced by family members, friends, care givers or others, are not as rare as we would like them to be.

****

So, those are my stories. What’s important to know about the relevant law and procedure?

First, Massachusetts law is quite clear: a forged deed does not convey title. Consequently, in the first two scenarios described above, neither deed conveyed legal ownership of the property to the grantee shown on the deed even though the deed (1) looked legitimate, and (2) had been recorded at the registry of deeds. This is a BIG DEAL and is almost always omitted from advertisements and editorials that warn of title theft. It should also ease the concerns of those who worry about falling victim to this type of fraud.

BUT even though title does not pass to the fraudster, the true homeowner is still left with a legal and paperwork mess to resolve. As illustrated in cases one and two above, it was the person harmed who had to hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit to get the fraudulent deed declared by the court to be fraudulent. This hardly seems fair but that’s the way the system works. Once the court case is filed, if the facts are like case one above (the stranger drafting a completely fictitious conveyance), the case should be resolved quickly since it’s unlikely that the wrong doer will show up to defend against the claim. On the other hand, a case like number two above which involves an interfamily dispute may require a full trial and would therefore take longer to resolve.

In either case, the legal fees incurred by the innocent property owner would be substantial. Including a claim for money damages in the lawsuit or seeking restitution in a criminal prosecution look good on paper, but both of those would take time to adjudicate and, more importantly, wrongdoers usually don’t have assets to pay such judgments.

Something that might help the innocent property owner is title insurance. When you buy real estate and finance your purchase with a mortgage, your lender requires you to obtain title insurance. For a one-time payment, title insurance protects against financial loss resulting from defects in a property’s legal title. Almost everyone who has bought or refinanced a home purchased title insurance at the closing, although amidst the avalanche of documents that are signed at the closing, few realize title insurance is included. Critically, there are two types of title insurance policies. The mandatory one, a lender’s policy, covers the mortgage lender to the amount of the loan. The second one, which is optional, is the owner’s policy which covers the equity in the property. Since it’s optional, buyers might be tempted to forgo it given all the other closing costs, but you should always opt for an owner’s policy of title insurance.

However, whether title insurance would pay a lawyer to represent you in a case of deed fraud that arises after you have become the owner of the property depends on the fine print of the title insurance policy. Some cover it; some do not.

Legislators interested in this issue should explore making coverage of title theft defense and loss mandatory for all Massachusetts title insurance policies even if that increases their cost. (However, because title theft continues to be so rare, it is unlikely to gain any legislative momentum since other public policy issues have higher priority.)

Regardless of who pays for a lawyer, receiving early warning of title theft is critical. The best way to get that is by signing up for the free Consumer Notification Service offered by the Massachusetts Secretary of State. Once you create a free account, you enter information about your property. Then, anytime a new document that affects that property is recorded at the registry of deeds, you get an automated email about the new document so you can check it out. This system doesn’t prevent a fraudulent document from being recorded but it does give you immediate warning of it.

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to recording documents at the registry of deeds; real estate ownership and finance is a huge part of the U.S. and global economies. In that context, the speed with which transactions can be processed and recorded is critical to the smooth operation of that system. While you could create a document recording system that reduced the changes of fraud – say, by requiring all sellers to personally appear at the registry to sign their deed – the entire real estate system would grind to a halt and chaos would ensue. I do think technology can provide greater safeguards, but the scale of the problem must be big enough to warrant the investment. However, because title theft continues to be so rare, that’s unlikely to happen.

Finally, regarding the Sun editorial, the omission was that a forged deed does not convey title, something I covered above. The misstatement of law dealt with something called a “quitclaim” deed. The editorial asserted that quitclaim deeds are “not usually used for traditional home sales” since they do not carry the same protections as other forms of deeds. That may be the case elsewhere, but in Massachusetts a quitclaim deed is the standard type of deed used in nearly all conveyances, and it carries all needed protection. (What is called a quitclaim deed elsewhere is a deed of release in Massachusetts.) I mention this in case anyone reading the editorial panicked when they saw they had a quitclaim deed since that is exactly what everyone who owns a home in Massachusetts has.

****

This week in my Seen and Heard column, I mentioned a NYT business column that urged caution in putting too many assets in the stock market which may be dangerously inflated due to AI investments; commented on another NYT article about the US granting Saudia Arabia access to nuclear technology; highlighted a profile of an artist who is “helping Trump reshape Washington;” recommended a recent Bob Sullivan Substack column about him interviewing Tony Bennett and Allen Ginsberg on consecutive nights; and the unstated Lowell connections in a Boston Globe article about Mount Auburn Cemetery.

****

Over the course of four weeks earlier this summer, I posted mini biographies of those who have served as mayors of Lowell since the receipt of the city charter in 1836. (Lowell was a town in its first decade.) In 1943, the people of Lowell adopted the Plan E form of government which featured a city council elected by the voters and a city manager elected by councilors. Today, I am posting sketches of the eighteen individuals who have served as city manager since that office was created in Lowell. (I have not included those who filled the office temporarily, as City Clerk Michael Geary has done on several occasions.)

****

John J. Flannery was Lowell’s first city manager. He was hired on January 4, 1944, and resigned on November 18, 1952, having held the job for nearly nine years. Flannery was born in Lowell in 1898. At age 17, he began working at the United State Cartridge Company where he remained until the company closed in 1927. That year, he became the Permanent Secretary of the Lowell Lodge of Elks. In 1940, he became the city treasurer, a position he held until being hired as city manager. His salary was $15,000 and he never took a vacation in his nine years as manager. Flannery died in Lowell on February 1, 1958, at age 60. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Ulysses J. Lupien was Lowell’s second city manager. He was hired by the city council on November 29, 1952, and began work on December 1, 1952. The council that took office a month later clashed with Lupien who was fired on November 11, 1953, by a five to three vote. Lupien was born in Wayland, Massachusetts, on December 12, 1883. He grew up and went to school in that town then graduated from Harvard. He was hired by Lowell Textile Institute to teach mechanical engineering which led him to move to Chelmsford where he bought a home. He taught for ten years then became the head of industrial relations for the Pacific Mills in Lawrence. In 1939, he was hired to be the state’s Director of Civil Service, a position he held until 1944. He continued to live in Chelmsford after his time as city manager but died in Lowell on August 15, 1965, at age 81. He is buried in West Chelmsford Cemetery in Chelmsford.

Frank E. Barrett was Lowell’s third city manager. He was hired on November 18, 1953, and was fired on January 2, 1962, during the council inauguration ceremony (something commonly done in the early days of Plan E). Barrett was born in Lowell on January 19, 1907, and graduated from Lowell High and the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. He briefly worked as a banker in New York City but returned to Lowell and worked at several jobs until 1940 when he was hired as a reporter at the Lowell Sun. In fact, he was the newspaper’s City Hall reporter when he was hired as city manager. After his time as manager, he owned and operated Frank E. Barrett Real Estate Company. He died in Lowell on October 14, 1988, at age 81. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Cornelius F. Desmond was Lowell’s fourth city manager. He was hired on January 4, 1962, and retired on October 29, 1963, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. Desmond was born in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, on October 4, 1893. His family moved to Lowell when he was a child, and he graduated from Lowell High School. He served in the US Army during World War One, then worked in the circulation department of several newspapers in New York and Boston until the 1930s when he was hired to be a supervisor in the New Deal’s WPA program. In 1940, he was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives where he served for eleven terms. (For nearly a year after being elected city manager, he continued to serve as a state representative until that term ended.) He died in Lowell on October 1, 1974, at age 80. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

P. Harold Ready was Lowell’s fifth city manager. He was elected on October 29, 1963, and began as city manager on November 1, 1963. He retired as city manager in November 1966. Ready was born in Lowell on April 12, 1900. He graduated from Boston University Law School in 1920 and practiced law in Lowell for 60 years. He served as legal counsel for the Lowell Housing Authority and the Town of Billerica before being hired as the Lowell City Solicitor in 1942. He remained city solicitor until 1952 and then returned to that position in 1962. Upon the retirement of Cornelius Desmond as city manager, the city council immediately hired Ready, who was serving as city solicitor at the time. Ready died in Lowell on January 5, 1987, at age 86. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Charles A. Gallagher was Lowell’s sixth city manager. He was elected on November 23, 1966, by a seven to two vote. He resigned on August 10, 1970. Gallagher was born in Lowell on September 14, 1914. As a young man he worked in the Hillsboro Mills in Wilton, New Hampshire. He was hired by the Lowell City Treasurer’s office in the late 1930s and, after serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, became City Treasurer. He was in that position when hired to be city manager. In 1971, less than a year after leaving the manager’s position, he was elected to the city council and served two terms. He died in Boston on April 6, 1993, at age 78. He is buried in St. Mary Cemetery in Tewksbury.

James L. Sullivan was Lowell’s seventh city manager. He was elected on September 29, 1970, and resigned on March 29, 1974, to take the job of city manager of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sullivan was born in Somerville, Massachusetts, on December 11, 1925. During World War II, he saw combat in the Pacific while serving in the U.S. Navy. After the war he graduated from Boston College and became a schoolteacher. While teaching, he earned a master’s in public administration from B.C. and then became the assistant town manager of Arlington, Massachusetts. From that job, he was hired to be Cambridge City Manager, however, after two years, he was fired from that position. Lowell then hired Sullivan who served as city manager until 1974 when he was hired back by Cambridge where he served as manager until 1981. Thereafter, he was the president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce until his retirement in 1991. He remained a resident of Lowell until very late in life. He died on September 26, 2012, in New Jersey. He is buried in the New Hampshire Veterans Cemetery in Boscawen, New Hampshire.

Paul J. Sheehy was Lowell’s eighth city manager. He was elected on April 24, 1974, and served until September 5, 1975, when he resigned. Sheehy was born in Lowell on November 1, 1934. He graduated from Keith Academy and Lowell State Teachers College (now UMass Lowell). While teaching school in Lowell, he attended the night program at Suffolk University Law School. After passing the bar, he began practicing law and was also elected as a state representative. He served in that office until 1972 when he ran for Congress (he lost the Democratic primary to John Kerry who lost the general election to Paul Cronin). After serving as Lowell City Manager, Sheehy worked in the Congressional offices of Joseph Early in Worcester and James Shannon in Lowell. In 1984, Sheehy was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate and served three terms. He died in Lowell on March 10, 2014, at age 79. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

William S. Taupier was Lowell’s ninth city manager. He was elected on October 14,1975 and resigned on May 23, 1979. Taupier was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts, on September 24, 1936. He graduated from Boston College and returned to Holyoke where he was elected as an alderman and then, in 1967, the city’s mayor. He served as mayor until 1975 when he chose not to run for reelection, although he was still mayor of Holyoke when he was hired to be Lowell City Manager. After finishing in that position, Taupier remained in Lowell and was self-employed as a real estate and business consultant. In 1995, he was elected to the Lowell School Committee and served two terms. Taupier died in Lowell on December 3, 2014, at age 78. He is buried in Mount Saint Benedict Cemetery in Bloomfield, Connecticut.

B. Joseph Tully was Lowell’s tenth city manager. He was elected on June 20, 1979, and served until his resignation in early 1987. Tully was born in Lowell on January 4, 1927. He graduated from Keith Academy and served in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War Two. After the war, he worked as a manufacturer’s representative, doing business as Tully Associates. He moved to Dracut and was elected as a selectman. In 1970, he was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate where he served until becoming city manager. After his time in that office, he was self-employed as a business consultant. He died in Lowell on November 1, 2015. He is buried in Oakland Cemetery in Dracut.

[NOTE: sketches for former city managers who are still alive may contain fewer biographical details since I have obtained much of that information about deceased city managers from their obituaries.]

James J. Campbell was Lowell’s eleventh city manager. He was elected on January 7, 1987, and served until his resignation on September 6, 1991. Campbell served as Assistant City Manager under Joe Tully. When Tully resigned, the council elected Campbell to succeed him. In August 1991, Governor William Weld appointed Campbell to serve as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents.

Richard Johnson was Lowell’s twelfth city manager. He was elected on November 26, 1991, and resigned on July 19, 1995. Johnson got his start in politics in Taunton, Massachusetts, as an assistant to the mayor of that city and as director of the Taunton Housing Authority. In 1981, he was elected mayor of Taunton and was reelected to four more two-year terms. He was defeated in 1991, however, and soon after leaving office was hired in Lowell. After resigning as Lowell City Manager, he became a vice president of Veolia Water North America, a global water and waste management firm.

Brian Martin was Lowell’s thirteenth city manager. He was elected on August 25, 1995, and resigned in June 2000. Martin was born in Lowell and graduated from Lowell High School and UMass Amherst. He was a teacher and athletic coach at Greater Lowell Vocational High School. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1981 and served as the city’s mayor in 1984-85. He left the council in 1988 to become an assistant city manager in the James Campbell administration and continued serving under Richard Johnson. When Johnson left, a unanimous city council selected Martin as his successor. After leaving the office of city manager, Martin became a senior official at Lowell-based Joan Fabrics. In 2005, he became athletic director of the Lowell Public Schools and in 2013 was selected to be the Lowell High School head of schools, a position he held until his retirement in 2017.

John Cox was Lowell’s fourteenth city manager. He was elected on July 7, 2000, and resigned in April 2006, effective July 26, 2006. Cox was born in Lowell and graduated from Lowell High School, Salem State College, and New England School of Law. He practiced law in the city and was elected as a state representative in 1982. He served in the Massachusetts House until 1994 when he did not seek reelection. He continued practicing law both before and after serving as city manager.

Bernie Lynch was Lowell’s fifteenth city manager. He was elected on June 30, 2006, taking office on July 31. He resigned on January 7, 2014. Lynch was born in Ashland, Massachusetts. He graduated from UMass Lowell and then received a master’s in public administration from UMass Amherst. He was hired by the town of Chelmsford in 1986 and became that town’s first town manager in 1989. He served there until he was hired in Lowell. Since he left the office of Lowell City Manager, he has owned and operated a municipal government consulting firm with an extensive roster of clients throughout Massachusetts.

Kevin Murphy was Lowell’s sixteenth city manager. He was elected in April 2014 and served until his retirement in April 2018. Murphy was born in Lowell and graduated from Keith Academy, Boston College and Suffolk University Law School. He worked as a legislative aide and then practiced law in Lowell, including as an assistant city solicitor. In 1996, he was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and served there until he was elected city manager. After leaving the manager’s office, Murphy resumed practicing law in Greater Lowell.

Eileen Donoghue was Lowell’s seventeenth city manager. She was elected on March 28, 2018, and served until her retirement on April 11, 2022. Donoghue was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts, graduated from UMass Amherst, and moved to Lowell while attending Suffolk University Law School. She worked as a federal public defender and then established her own law practice. She was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1995 and served until 2007 when she did not seek reelection. She also served consecutive terms as mayor in 1998 and 2000. In 2012, she was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate and served there until 2018 when she was hired to be Lowell City Manager. After leaving the manager’s office, Donoghue resumed her Lowell law practice.

Thomas Golden is Lowell’s eighteenth city manager. He was elected on March 30, 2022, and took office on April 28, 2022. Golden was born in Lowell and is a graduate of Lowell High School and UMass Lowell. He was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1994 and served there until being elected city manager.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reviewed the book Rasputin: The Downfall of the Romanovs; commented on a story about the late US Senator Lindsey Graham; commented on The Vergecast podcast episode, “You can’t ignore Google Zero anymore;” and mentioned an edition of the GBH newsletter on Lowell has an art destination.

When I finished watching the meeting video two weeks ago, I felt a vague sense of contentment. Nothing major or controversial had come up, but the council and city administration seemed to be doing the work of government in a rational, responsible way.

I was left with a different feeling after watching this week’s meeting. The best word to describe it might be dysfunctional.

****

An early item on the agenda was a motion by Councilor Rita Mercier to reconsider a vote taken by the council at their last meeting. That vote authorized the city manager to file special legislation on behalf of Vincent Fernandez, a former city employee who seeks to alter his retirement status and pension payments.

Looking back at that July 14, 2026, council meeting, the vote document the council acted upon explained that while working as a Lowell Police Officer in 2016, Fernandez was severely injured in the line of duty which left him unable to return to work as a police officer. Consequently, he received a disability retirement pension from the Lowell Retirement Board. The document presented to the council contains a page and a half of language which was difficult to comprehend for anyone not deeply immersed in the intricacies of Massachusetts government disability pensions, a group that includes me as well as most councilors, I suspect.

The city administration provided no further explanation or information to councilors. A couple of councilors asked if this would set a precedent and how many others in a similar situation would now come forward. City Manager Golden seemed to sidestep those issues and instead explained that the council passing this vote would only be the first step and it would ultimately be up to the state legislature whether to enact this special bill for Mr. Fernandez.

When the initial vote was taken, it passed with Councilors Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Sidney Liang, Sean McDonough, Rita Mercier, Corey Robinson, Dan Rourke, and Kim Scott voting yes; Mayor Erik Gitschier voting no; and Councilors Belinda Juran and Vesna Nuon abstaining (Councilor Juran had earlier stated she was uncomfortable voting on this without knowing more about the implications).

This week, when Councilor Mercier’s motion to reconsider was called, former Fire Chief Bill Desrosiers, who is now chair of the Lowell Retirement Board, spoke on the motion. He explained that the retirement board first learned this had come before the council a few days after the council had already voted on it (which was why the Board was only just now addressing the council).

He further explained that sometime after Mr. Fernandez was granted his disability retirement, the state legislature changed the law to allow police officers injured by violent acts in the line of duty to collect more generous disability retirement pensions than had previously been the case. However, that legislation specifically prohibited the retroactive application of the new law. In other words, if you were already collecting a disability pension (as Mr. Fernandez was), you had to keep that pension and were unable to have the new law applied to you.

Notwithstanding that language, Mr. Fernandez petitioned the Lowell Retirement Board to revise his disability retirement pension so that he could receive the more generous benefits provided by the new law (it was unclear with the proposal would bring him within the law or place him in some hybrid situation with benefits equivalent to those in the new law). The Lowell Board, after checking with the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), the agency that provides oversight and guidance for the operation of the state’s public pension systems, rejected the request of Mr. Fernandez.

With that avenue foreclosed, Mr. Fernandez now seeks the financial benefits of the new law through special legislation by the state legislature. To accomplish this, he seeks to have the city initiate this special legislation on his behalf, hence the vote that was passed by the city council on July 14, 2026.

Now, two weeks after that vote was taken, Lowell Retirement Board Chair Desrosiers came before the council to explain that (1) the Lowell Retirement Board had already rejected this request; (2) if the proposed special legislation passes, the Lowell Retirement Board will owe Mr. Frenandes approximately $500,000 more than it has already paid him or for which it has budgeted for future payments; (3) this will open the door to other similarly situated retirees; and (4) these unanticipated and substantial increases in pension payouts will place additional stress on the fiscal health of the Lowell Retirement system to the detriment of other retirees to whom the Board owes a fiduciary duty.

When Desrosiers finished, Council Mercier spoke. Although she did it more tactfully, she essentially said it would have been nice to have had all this information before she had voted yes for this two weeks ago because this new information would have caused her to vote differently. She further explained that since she was on the winning side of that vote, the rules allowed her to move for reconsideration of that vote, so she filed this motion.

Councilor Mercier stopped short of asking the city manager why this information hadn’t been provided to the council before taking the initial vote. A couple of councilors probed that issue, but no one pressed it aggressively.

Golden’s position, it seemed, was that there was no harm done in taking this vote since it was ultimately up to the legislature whether to grant this or not.

I have zero knowledge of this issue beyond what I saw and heard at these two council meetings, but reading between the lines of what was said, it seems that Mr. Fernandez or someone advocating for him, has been lobbying for this – at one point Golden mentioned having received inquiries from “the media” about this case – to the point that the city manager opted to “kick the can down the road” to Beacon Hill.

If that strategy was intended to get whoever was pressing him out of his hair, it likely backfired. By presenting the council with this vote two weeks ago without any context or supporting documents and with the retirement board already having rejected it, Golden may have left at least a couple of councilors suspecting that the manager was trying to slip something by them.

After more discussion, the roll call on the motion to reconsider the original vote was taken. Voting to reconsider were Mayor Gitschier and Councilors Belinda Juran, Rita Mercier, Vesna Nuon, Corey Robinson, Sokhary Chau and John Descoteaux. Voting against reconsidering the motion were Councilors Sidney Liang, Sean McDonough, Dan Rourke and Kim Scott. So the motion to reconsider the July 14, 2026, vote passed.

Since the council immediately moved onto another item without any discussion about what would happen with the Fernandez legislation now that the original vote had been reconsidered, that matter is now in limbo. The council reconsidering its prior vote just means the underlying vote is voided so the matter is still pending. It will be interesting to see if it shows up on a future agenda or if it just quietly disappears.

****

If the context of that pension vote was opaque, another agenda item was deep in an information fogbank. This was a motion by Mayor Erik Gitschier that requested the minutes “of the July 14, 2026 Executive Session be released regarding the UHC-TIF; once released all discussion to be held in open session for this topic.”

Google tells me that “UHC-TIF” likely stands for the state’s Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Finance program which was created by Massachusetts General Laws c.40, s.60. While a standard TIF is designed to attract businesses and industry, this one (usually called UCH-TIF) promotes multi-unit residential development.

But maybe a UHC-TIF is something else. I couldn’t tell because watching this portion of the meeting put me in the mind of a World War II cryptographer trying to crack the German’s Enigma code. Whatever this thing is related to was discussed by the council in executive session, so everyone who spoke about it on Tuesday used riddles and codes to remain within the confidentiality required of executive sessions. The councilors all knew the secret handshake, but the public did not. This created the impression that councilors (1) are keeping something from us; or (2) don’t know what they’re talking about. Either way, it’s not a good look for the council.

I assume the mayor saw some tactical advantage to be gained by releasing the minutes sooner rather than later, but the motion failed with six councilors voting no (Juran, Liang, Mercier, Nuon, Rourke and Descoteaux) and just five voting yes (Gitschier, McDonough, Robinson, Scott and Chau).

****

Another instance of “there’s more going on here than councilors let on” happened with a vote to transfer $249,708 to the city’s Health & Human Service Department to pay its lease at 107 Merrimack Street. (From some council comments, it seems this is related to something discussed in executive session, as well.)

HHS used to be at the old Brady School on Pine Street and will eventually move to 40 Market Street, the one-time Lowell Police Station and “police court” that the city reacquired last year. In the meantime, HHS moved into its current location which is alongside Purple Carrot Bread Company at the corner of Merrimack and John Streets.

From the (public) discussion of this vote, it sounds like the city entered a ten-year lease for the premises, but like all city leases, it’s “subject to appropriation.” It also sounded like the city has reached an agreement with the 107 Merrimack Street landlord to continue paying rent until the Market Street building is ready for occupancy at which time HHS will move there. This supplemental appropriation is to pay the rent on 107 Merrimack for the current fiscal year.

This all sounded reasonable; however, the council rejected the appropriation. Because it’s a transfer of money, it requires a two-third majority vote, which on this council is eight votes. It only received seven. Voting against the appropriation were Mayor Gitschier and Councilors Liang, McDonough and Robinson. Voting for the appropriation were Councilors Juran, Mercier, Nuon, Rourke, Scott, Chau and Descoteaux.

Besides the executive session obtuseness that cloak some of the circumstances of this vote, there is a political dimension, as well. The property at 107 Merrimack Street is owned by Nicholas Sarris as trustee of 107 Merrimack Street Trust. That’s the same Nicholas Sarris who owns the Lowell Senior Center building as a trustee. While it’s a different trust, it’s the same basic entity. The council’s Senior Center ownership dispute has been silent for several months, but that doesn’t mean it’s been resolved. Consequently, it’s possible that the rejection of this appropriation was a proxy skirmish in the ongoing Senior Center fight.

****

In the legal profession, there’s a general rule that when you’ve made three points in your favor with a witness, sit down, because that one additional question, you’re tempted to ask might be overkill. With that in mind, I’ll quit for now even though there are several other examples of council dysfunction from Tuesday night.

****

Thursday’s U.S. mail brought my Democratic Primary vote-by-mail ballot for the September 1, 2026, state primary. Since this system was implemented during the pandemic, I’ve been a reliable mail in voter and it’s always worked fine. If you want to vote that way or for information about this election and others, visit the webpage of the Lowell Election and Census Office which is packed with useful information.

****

Bob Sullivan is a Chelmsford native with deep roots in Lowell who had a long writing and editing career at Sports Illustrated, Time and LIFE. I only met him recently and then just virtually, but our shared interests and the pleasure we find in writing made a quick connection. He also has a Substack newsletter called “That Reminds Me of a Story” in which Bob writes about “our life today and yesterday in America, cast with humor and hope of engagement.”

Please check out Bob’s Substack Page and subscribe to it. (I don’t want to curtail his revenue stream but thus far it’s all free although Substack offers you the opportunity to chip in.)

In the interest of full-disclosure, I appeared as a character in a recent edition of Bob’s newsletter: “Interluding On: Meet Our Unincorporated Kerouac Klub” which includes sketches of several well-known Lowell figures and a dip into some fascinating Lowell history. Even if you don’t subscribe to the newsletter, please read this piece.

****

In some local literary news, Louise Peloquin, a regular contributor to this site has published her debut novel, Boarding School Blues, a fictionalized account of life at a New England Catholic all girls boarding school in the 1960s that ran in serial form on this site several years ago. The book is available from the print-on-demand company LULU Press and can be ordered at this link.

****

Although I wrote a “Seen & Heard” Column this week, it failed to launch on Wednesday as scheduled so I posted it on richardhowe.com earlier this morning. This week, I wrote about the Lowell Folk Festival; reviewed the book, “Mailman: My Wild ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home”; described a guided tour I took of the Massachusetts State House; commented on an Op-Ed about “shaking up” the national Democratic Party; and summarized an essay about the artist Frederic Church, a member of the Hudson River School of landscape painting.

For those who missed the first installment of this series, it was published on my website, richardhowe.com, on June 14, 2026. The second installment was published on June 28, 2026. The third installment appeared on July 12, 2026.

****

Brian Martin was mayor in 1984-85. A star athlete at Lowell High School and UMass Amherst, Brian began his professional career as a teacher and coach at Greater Lowell Vocational High School. He was elected to the Lowell City council in 1981 and was elected mayor in January 1984 at age 33, making him the youngest mayor in the city’s history to that point. He served on the city council until 1988 when he became assistant city manager and then city manager. In 2000, he left City Hall to work for the Lowell Lock Monsters hockey team. In 2005, he became Athletic Director at Lowell High and in 2013 became Lowell High’s Head of School until his retirement in 2017.

Robert B. Kennedy was mayor in 1986-87. He was born in Lowell on February 6, 1940, and graduated from Lowell High, Bentley University, and Lowell Technological Institute (now UMass Lowell). He worked for Trans World Airlines, American Airlines, Vespa of America, and New England LNG Corporation. He served on the Lowell City Council for three stretches: from 1971 to 1975; from 1981 to 1985; and from 1988 to 1990. He was elected mayor on January 6, 1986, on the first ballot by a five to four vote. He also served as a state representative from 1975 to 1979 and as a governor’s councilor from 1989 to 1995. For ten years before his retirement, he was the executive director of the Lowell Regional Transit Authority (LRTA). He died on May 1, 2018, at age 78, and is buried in St. Mary’s Cemetery in Tewksbury. He was honored by the LRTA, which named its new bus terminal the Robert B. Kennedy Bus Transfer Center.

Tarsy Poulios was mayor in 1992-93. He was born in Lowell on May 13, 1926, to Greek immigrant parents. He graduated from Lowell High in 1943 and served in the US Army in the Pacific during World War II. After the war he worked in textile mills and at the Boston Navy Yard. In 1951, he became a letter carrier with the US Postal Service, a position he held until his retirement in 1984. He became a neighborhood activist with the Acre Model Neighborhood Organization (AMNO) and was on the city of Lowell Board of Appeals for 12 years. He was elected to the Lowell City council in 1987 and served until 1995. He was elected mayor on January 6, 1992, on the second ballot. He died on December 13, 2010, at age 84. He is buried in Westlawn Cemetery. The city of Lowell dedicated the street leading from Adams Street to the Murkland School after him as Tarsy Poulios Way.

Edward “Bud” Caulfield was mayor in 1996-97, and in 2008-09. He was born in Billerica, but his family moved to Lowell when he was a teenager. He began work at Raytheon immediately after high school and remained there until his retirement decades later. He was extremely active in the Little League and the Highland Players performance troupe. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1987 and served continuously until 2011 when he did not seek reelection. On January 2, 1996, he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a five to four vote. On January 7, 2008, he was elected mayor unanimously on the first ballot.

Eileen Donoghue was mayor in 1998-99, and in 2000-2001. She was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts, graduated from UMass Amherst, and moved to Lowell while attending Suffolk University Law School. She worked as a federal public defender and then established her own law practice. She was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1995 and served until 2007 when she ran for US Congress. She was elected to consecutive terms as mayor in 1998 and 2000. In 2012, she was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate and served there until 2018 when she was hired to be Lowell City Manager. She held that position until 2022.

Rita M. Mercier was mayor in 2002-03. She was born and raised in Lowell, and together with her late husband raised four children in the city. She was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1995 and has been reelected in every election since. In 2002, she was elected as mayor, the third woman to hold that office in Lowell. In 2004, she began working for the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Department where she remains employed. She continues serving on the Lowell City Council.

Armand P. Mercier was mayor in 2004-05. He was born in Lowell on November 8, 1933, and graduated from St. Joseph High School. For most of his life, he operated a real estate office in the Pawtucketville neighborhood. Prior to being elected to the city council in 1997, he served as a commissioner and then as executive director of the Lowell Housing Authority. He also served as the executive director of the Lowell Historical Preservation Commission. He was elected to the city council four times, serving from 1998 to 2008. He died on January 13, 2012, at age 78. He is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery in Chelmsford. The Lowell Housing Authority dedicated its community building on Salem Street after him as the Armand P. Mercier Multi Service Center.

William F. Martin Jr. was mayor in 2002-03. He was born and raised in Lowell and graduated from the College of the Holy Cross and Boston College Law School. After working at a Boston law firm for several years, he returned to Lowell to open his own legal practice which he continues to this day. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1999 and was continuously reelected until 2015 when he did not seek reelection. In January 2006, he was elected mayor. He continues to live and work in Lowell.

James Milinazzo was mayor in 2010-11. He was born in Lowell and graduated from Lowell High School. In the 1980s, he served as the city’s director of planning and development and then as the executive director of the Lowell Development and Financial Corporation. He also was executive director of the Lowell Housing Authority. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 2003 and was elected mayor in January 2010. He did not seek reelection to the council in 2019. He continues to live in Lowell.

Patrick O. Murphy was mayor in 2012-13. He was born in Lowell in 1982. He graduated from Phillips Academy and attended Tufts University and Trinity College, Dublin. While working as a stone mason, he ran for Congress in 2007 as an independent. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 2009 and reelected in 2011. On January 3, 2012, he was elected mayor in a five to four vote. He was 29 years old, making him the youngest mayor in Lowell’s history. He did not seek reelection in 2013 but moved with his family to Vermont where he works as a state transportation official.

Rodney Elliott was mayor in 2014-15. He was born in Lowell in 1960 and received his education at Plymouth State University, Suffolk University and the Catholic University of America. He previously worked as a Lowell city planner and then as a legislative aide to State Senator Phil Shea. Later he worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency. He was elected to the Lowell City council in 1997 and held that office until January 2022. On January 6, 2014, he was elected mayor on the first ballot. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 2022 and was reelected in 2024. He continues to hold that office although he is not seeking reelection in 2026.

Edward J. Kennedy Jr. was mayor in 2016-17. He was born on March 24, 1951, and was educated at Boston University and Framingham State University. He worked as a probation officer and then as a commercial real estate appraiser. He was first elected to the Lowell City Council in 1978 and served until 1985. He served as a Middlesex County Commissioner from 1992 through 1996. He returned to the city council in 2011 and was elected mayor on January 6, 2016. He was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate in 2018 and served there until his death on October 1, 2025, at age 74. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

William “Bill” Samaras was mayor in 2018-19. He was born in Lowell and graduated from Lowell High School. He received degrees from Boston University, Salem State University and Northeastern University. He worked as a classroom teacher and an administrator until becoming Headmaster of Lowell High School in 1991, a position he held until his retirement in 2010. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 2013. On January 2, 2018, he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a five to four vote. He continued to serve on the city council until 2022. He remains active in Lowell, serving as a commissioner on the Lowell Housing Authority and in several other community service roles.

John Leahy was mayor in 2020-21. He was born and raised in Lowell and operated a painting business in the city. He was elected to the Lowell School Committee in 2001 and served on that body until 2011 when he was elected to the city council. He was elected mayor on January 6, 2020, on the first ballot by a seven to two vote. He continued to be reelected to the city council but resigned in July 2024 to become deputy facilities director for the Lowell Public Schools, a position he continues to hold.

Sokhary Chau was mayor in 2022-23. He was born in Cambodia but came to the United States at a young age with his widowed mother and siblings after living in a Thai refugee camp for several years. He attended the Lowell Public Schools, Phillips Academy and Macalester College. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 2019. On January 3, 2022, he was unanimously elected mayor on the first ballot, making him the first Cambodian mayor of Lowell and in the United States. He continues serving on the city council and is currently a candidate for state representative.

Daniel P. Rourke was mayor in 2024-25. He was born and raised in Lowell and graduated from University of Massachusetts Lowell. He works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as the Assistant Chief Probation Officer at the Lowell District Court. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 2013. On January 2, 2024, he was elected mayor by a nine to two vote (the council had expanded to eleven members in 2022). He continues to serve on the city council.

Erik R. Gitschier has served as mayor since January 5, 2026. He was born and raised in Lowell, graduating from Greater Lowell Technical High School and UMass Lowell. Professionally, he has worked for several municipalities in a variety of operational positions. He was elected to the Greater Lowell Technical High School Committee in 2011 and to the Lowell City Council in 2022. He was elected mayor on January 5, 2026, and continues to serve in that office.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I commented on an article suggesting the voters of Massachusetts might repeal their earlier vote to legalize marijuana; I reviewed the book “The Reshaping of Everyday Life: 1790-1840”; I commented on an article about the death of a Boston city planner who was struck while riding her bicycle; I commented on an article about the Canadian wild fire smoke that turned our sky yellow; and I noted the obituary of the actor Sam Neill.

****

Underage drinking - A trio of motions addressed the presence of minors in establishments that serve alcohol. A steady stream of incidents over the past year indicate that several downtown bars routinely serve alcohol to individuals who are not yet 21 years old. You might ask, why aren’t these places checking IDs at the entrance and not admitting anyone who is underage? That would be a reasonable and easily policed procedure if the city’s licensing ordinances did not contain a massive loophole.

Specifically, any establishment that has a licensed kitchen is deemed to be a restaurant which can admit patrons of any age. There’s a certain logic to that policy: when a family goes out to dinner, the parents might want a glass of wine with their meals while their minor children join them. But as I heard the Lowell ordinance explained at a prior city council meeting, a liquor establishment need only have a licensed kitchen to fall into the “restaurant” category that allows customers of all ages to enter. It doesn’t matter if the kitchen ever opens, if it passes the city’s inspection, there’s no need to check IDs at the door. True, the server is then supposed to ensure that the person being served is of legal age, but even if that happened diligently, it would not be as effective as totally excluding underaged people from the place.

The challenge for city government comes with drafting the ordinance. A bar that has a kitchen that is never opened should not be treated like a full-service restaurant. But what if the place serves microwavable pizzas? Is that enough? Where do you draw the line? It may be difficult, but making laws and rules is all about drawing lines so the city should get its act together and revise the existing rules.

Of course, that assumes there is a desire to revise those rules which I sometimes doubt. For all the “we have to protect our children” rhetoric from councilors, I question whether there is a collective will to address this problem. People who run for public office are not recluses. They don’t sit quietly at home. They are social and like to be out and among other people. Such socialization frequently occurs at places that serve alcohol which inevitably makes elected officials familiar and friendly with those who own and operate such establishments. With such familiarity comes sympathy, or at least a desire to avoid inflicting economic pain, an attitude that inevitably softens regulations.

Another factor is a firmly established culture in some segments of Lowell that tolerates and even celebrates underaged drinking. Perhaps it flows from an “I did it at that age so why should I deprive my teenager of the same fun I had” attitude. Whatever the source, I think that attitude exists and has some political potency.

In the face of those factors, it will be interesting to see if the council separates rhetoric from action on this issue.

****

“Canvassers and Solicitors” – After a public hearing, the council unanimously voted to amend the city ordinance governing “canvassers and solicitors.” Among other things, the revised rule limits soliciting to a 12-hour window from 7:30 am until 7:30 pm; makes it unlawful for a license-holder to enter onto a premises displaying a “No Trespassing” or “No Solicitation” sign; requires the license-holder prior to doing any canvassing to notify the police department either in person or by telephone of the “date, time and approximate location said business will be conducted.”

As someone who has run for office and worked on political campaigns, I have done my share of door-knocking and sympathize with those who do it for a living. That said, if I want to switch internet providers or acquire a rooftop solar system, I’ll research the options and make a deliberate choice. I don’t think I’ve ever purchased goods or services from someone who arrived unannounced at my door, so I have no problem with this ordinance. Notably, canvassers engaged in charitable or political activities are not affected by this rule.

During the brief council discussion on this issue, Councilor Dan Rourke speculated that the city should perhaps include a “do not solicit” list for those who don’t want commercial canvassers coming to their door. That wasn’t take up but it seems homeowners could achieve the same result with a “no solicitation” sign.

****

Smith Baker Center – The council confirmed a vote taken in executive session by the prior council to enter into a Purchase & Sales Agreement (P&S) and a Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) between the city and the Smith Baker Preservation Corporation for the Smith Baker Center at 400 Merrimack Street.

A representative of the Corporation presented a brief video to councilors depicting how the first floor of the building will look and function in theory. It’s an impressive video which can be seen at 1 hour, 13 minutes of the YouTube video of the council meeting.

Although the details of the P&S and LDA have not yet been made public (if they even exist at this point) some elements were mentioned during the discussion. The purchase price to be paid to the city is $470,000, however, all that money will be paid to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, to cover the HUD grants that were used by the city to purchase the property back in the 1970s. Unfortunately, repayment isn’t just paying back the 1970s grant plus interest. Instead, the amount due to HUD is the fair market value of the property right now. That means the city will not keep any of the $470K, however, it will eliminate any HUD claim on the property if this proposal doesn’t work out.

Speaking of not working out, the deed to the Preservation Corporation will have a reversionary clause that would restore ownership to the city if the Preservation Corporation failed to meet certain deadlines for restoring the property. However, that reversionary clause will become subordinate to any mortgage the Preservation Corporation may obtain on the property. That means that if the city declares a default that would trigger the reversionary clause, the lender could step in and foreclose since the lender’s position would be superior to the city’s. As regrettable as that may be, there is no practical alternative since if the city’s reversionary clause was superior to the mortgage, no one would ever make a loan on the property.

Finally, if all goes according to plan, the Preservation Corporation expects to obtain an occupancy permit for the property in the summer of 2029.

The council voted 10 to 0 to confirm the executive session vote with Councilor Belinda Juran abstaining. She explained that while she was supportive of the proposal, she did not participate in the executive session since she was not on the council at that time and retains some unease with the timelines and the ownership sequence should the proposal fail.

****

Data centers – Two motions, both jointly filed by Councilors Kim Scott and Sean McDonough, indirectly addressed data centers in the city.

The first motion asked for a report explaining why the city issued permits for demolition and for fire hydrants to the Markley Group (or a related entity) for property at 2 Tanner Street even though the city has a Data Center Moratorium in effect. Markley, which operates a data center at the former Prince Spaghetti plant in South Lowell, recently purchased a parcel on Tanner Street with the presumed intent of constructing a data center there.

The second motion asked for the drafting of a regulation that would prohibit the installation of diesel generators of more than a certain size anywhere in the city. While the words “data center” or “Markley” were not mentioned in this motion, it clearly targets data centers since those are the only types of facilities with generators of that size contemplated by the motion that would conceivably be in Lowell.

Both motions passed, so I assume we’ll see a report on Tanner Street and a draft ordinance about big diesel generators.

Although he voted in the affirmative, Councilor Dan Rourke cautioned against a reflexive anti-data center approach to city policy, explaining that whether we like it or not, artificial intelligence is working its way into every aspect of business, commerce, and life. While Lowell city government has an obligation to protect the quality of life of its residents, it should find a way to do it that’s compatible with reasonable economic development.

I’ve always been an early adopter of new technologies and artificial intelligence is no exception. OpenAI first released ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, and within a week I was using it extensively, amazed by its capabilities and its potential. But technological innovation always occurs in the context of society and the world around it. Whatever one’s feelings about the usefulness of AI, most people today recognize that the billionaires who control that technology have a track record of enriching themselves at the expense of American workers. In a functioning democracy, the government would establish policies to assist those who lose their jobs to AI and ease the transition to new work. But we live in a system where the ultra-wealthy exercise enormous control over our political system which in turn works for their benefit and at the expense of everyone else. Whatever their political party, I think most people recognize this and would like to do something about it. Data centers provide tangible objects that are emblematic of the threat to working people. As such, people who live far beyond the detrimental quality of life issues that come with data centers have reason to oppose their construction. Consequently, whatever barriers the city council erects to data centers will likely find widespread political support.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reviewed a book about visiting historic sites across the US; commented on the Boston Celtics trade of Jaylen Brown; noted an article about how shifting to all electric vehicles harmed Honda; reviewed the telecast of the Boston Pops July Fourth show; and commented on a newsletter by economist Jared Bernstein on grocery prices.

For those who missed the first installment of this series, it was published on my website, richardhowe.com, on June 14, 2026. The second installment was published on June 28, 2026. The fourth installment, covering the second batch of Plan E mayors from 1984 to the present, should be published on July 26, 2026.

Woodbury F. Howard was mayor in 1944-45. He was born in Lowell on April 3, 1905, and graduated from Lowell High School, Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He established a law practice in Lowell which he maintained throughout his life. He was a leading advocate for the adoption of Plan E in Lowell and was elected to the first council under that system. When that council took the oath of office on Monday, January 3, 1944, they elected Howard to be the city’s first Plan E mayor. He received five votes; Joseph Sweeney, who had served as acting mayor after the resignation of George Ashe, received three votes; and William Geary received one vote. Howard died on December 3, 1962, at age 57. At the time of his death, he lived at 24 Nesmith Street. He is buried in Edson Cemetery.

Leo A. Roy was mayor in 1946-47. He was born in Lowell on October 22, 1901. At the time of his death, he was the superintendent of maintenance for the Lowell Housing Authority’s North Common Village housing development. In 1936 he was elected as a ward councilor under the Plan B system and continued to be a councilor under Plan E, serving a total of sixteen years. In January 1946 he was elected mayor on the eighth ballot, receiving votes from J. Elzear Dionne, Vincent Hockmeyer, J. Russell Scott, Joseph J. Sweeney and himself. In earlier ballots, Sweeney had voted for William C. Geary who had his own vote plus that of Francis McMahon. Bart Callery voted for himself throughout the balloting. Roy died in Lowell on October 30, 1968, and is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery. The city subsequently named the municipal parking garage at 100 Market Street after him as the Leo A. Roy Parking Facility.

George A. Ayotte was mayor in 1948-49. He was born in Lowell on April 20, 1907. He owned and operated several markets in the city and was an accomplished musician. He was elected to the school committee in 1946 and to the city council in 1948, serving on the council until 1959. On January 5, 1948, he was elected mayor on the fifteenth ballot with votes from Vincent Hockmeyer, Woodbury F. Howard, Leo A. Roy, Bartholomew J. Callery and himself. The closest challenger was Councilor Joseph J. Sweeney who had received four votes on several earlier ballots. Ayotte died in Lowell on August 13, 1998, at age 91. He is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery. The city dedicated the parking garage at 1 Post Office Square (adjacent to the Tsongas Arena) after him as the George A. Ayotte Municipal Parking Facility.

William C. Geary was mayor in 1950. He was born in Lowell on May 22, 1899. He served in the U.S. Army in World War I and was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds suffered in combat in France. After the war, he was appointed director of the city’s office of state aid. He was elected to the city council in 1944 and served until 1951. He was also elected to the state senate in 1946 and continued serving concurrently on the council. At the city council inauguration on January 3, 1950, Geary received four votes for mayor. After sixteen ballots, the council recessed the mayoral election to the next evening’s council meeting. Geary retained his four votes until another recess was called after a total of 250 ballots had been cast. The vote resumed the next evening, but the stalemate continued through 327 ballots. The next night, January 6, 1950, no mayor was elected so the council recessed again after 432 ballots. Finally, on January 7, 1950, George C. Eliades, who had become Geary’s chief competitor, switched his vote to Geary which gave him the necessary five votes. Just a year later, however, Geary announced that he was resigning as mayor although he was retaining his seat on the council and Eliades was elected mayor to complete that term. William C. Geary died in Lowell in February 1962, at age 62. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery. (His grandson, Michael Geary served as a city councilor in the 1990s and is currently city clerk.)

George C. Eliades was mayor in 1951. He was born to Greek parents in Smyrna (now known as Izmir, Turkey) in 1901 and attended school there, including college. He came to the United States in 1921 to attend Boston University Law School. After passing the Massachusetts Bar, he began practicing law in Lowell. He was elected to the Lowell City Council and, on January 10, 1951, was elected mayor by fellow councilors to fill the unexpired term of Mayor William Geary who had resigned as mayor that evening. Eliades was the first Greek American mayor of Lowell. He died in Lowell on February 16, 1962, at age 60. At the time of his death, he lived at 46 Pentucket Avenue. He is buried in Westlawn Cemetery.

Henry Beaudry was mayor in 1952-53. He was born in Lowell on February 14, 1896, and operated Beaudry’s Restaurant at 470 Suffolk Street. He served on the school committee and on the city council. On January 7, 1952, he was elected mayor on the twenty-sixth ballot. He died in March 1969 and is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery.

John Janas was mayor in 1954-55. He was born in Lowell on September 4, 1910, and graduated from Lowell High School. He was first elected to the school committee and then to the city council where he served for 14 years. When the city council gathered for inauguration day on January 4, 1954, only eight councilors were present. The ninth seat was in dispute and the subject of court proceedings that ultimately ended up in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The eight councilors tried repeatedly over several days to elect a mayor, but no one received the necessary five votes. Finally, after the SJC had issued its decision, the ninth councilor – Samuel Sampson – was seated and on the 208th ballot, Janas received five votes and was elected, making him the first Polish American mayor of Lowell. In 1962, he was elected as a state representative, an office he continued to hold until his death on December 5, 1969, at age 59. He is buried in St. Casimir’s Polish National Cemetery in Pelham, New Hampshire. The state ice skating rink built on Douglas Road in 1971 was named after him as the John J. Janas Memorial Ice Skating Rink. (In the 1990s, his granddaughter, Kathleen Janas, served a term on the Lowell School Committee.)

Samuel S. Pollard was mayor in 1956-57 and in 1958-59. He was born in Lowell on October 19, 1915. He was elected to the Plan B city council in 1941 but resigned to enlist in the U.S. Army at the start of World War II. He saw considerable combat during his 46 months in the service and was awarded two Purple Hearts, including one for being severely wounded in the Battle of the Bulge. He was elected to the Plan E city council in 1951 and was repeatedly reelected. In January 1956 he was elected mayor on the first ballot with five votes. On the next inauguration day, January 6, 1958, no one received five votes. The deadlock continued through four separate gatherings, however, on January 21, 1958, on the 141st ballot, Pollard received six votes, making him the first person under Plan E to hold the office of mayor for consecutive terms. He died on November 18, 1980, at age 65. He is buried in St. Mary Cemetery in Tewksbury. The city of Lowell named its public library after him as the Samuel Pollard Memorial Library.

Raymond J. Lord was mayor in 1960-61. He was born in Lowell on September 18, 1912, and graduated from Lowell High School. In 1940, he was elected ward councilor under Plan B. In 1944, he was elected to the Plan E city council but resigned to enlist in the U.S. Navy. He served in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Returning to Lowell, he was elected to the council in 1945 but in 1947 was elected state representative where he served for eight years. He left the legislature when he was made an Assistant Commissioner of Public Safety. He also won a seat on the city council and was chosen unanimously to be mayor. He did not run for reelection in 1964. He died on February 6, 1972, at age 59 and is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery. (The Lord Overpass is named after his father, Louis Lord, who preceded him as a ward councilor; and his son, Raymond Lord Jr. was a city councilor in the 1970s.)

Joseph M. Downes was mayor in 1962-63. He was born in Lowell on March 21, 1919, and graduated from Lowell High School where he was a star baseball player. He served in the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Theater during World War II. In 1946, he became a Lowell Police Officer and served with the department for 20 years. She served several terms on the city council, and on January 2, 1962, was elected mayor on a six to three vote. He died on November 16, 1993, at age 74, and is buried in Tewksbury Cemetery. The city of Lowell dedicated the parking garage at 75 John Street after him as the Joseph M. Downes Sr. Municipal Parking Facility.

Ellen A. Sampson was mayor in 1964-65 and again in 1972-73. She was born in Greece on December 4, 1912, and came to the United States at a young age. She attended school in Cambridge and moved to Lowell in 1940. She was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1959, succeeding her late husband, Samuel Sampson, who died while on the council. On January 6, 1964, she became the first female mayor of Lowell, winning the office on a five to four vote. After losing reelection, she returned to the council in 1968. On Thursday, January 6, 1972, she was elected to her second term as mayor, winning the office on the 106th ballot. On inauguration day (Monday, January 3, 1972), Paul Tsongas and Phil Shea were the leading contenders, but neither could get the necessary 5th vote. After 15 ballots at the inauguration, the council voted to recess and resume the voting at the next evening’s regularly scheduled council meeting. During the 51 ballots cast that night (Tuesday, January 4, 1972), Shea, Tsongas and Richard Howe all received 4 votes on various ballots, but none could reach 5. Another recess was held and two nights later (Thursday, January 6, 1972) after 40 more ballots that night, Phil Shea announced he was withdrawing his candidacy and would vote for Sampson who was elected on the next ballot. On that decisive 106th ballot, Sampson received votes from Leo Farley, Charles Gallagher, Robert Kennedy, Shea and herself. Paul Tsongas received votes from Richard Howe, Gail Dunfey, Brendan Fleming and himself. The city of Lowell dedicated the stretch of Dutton Street from the Lord Overpass to Merrimack Street after her as the Ellen A. Sampson Connector.

Edward J. Early Jr. was mayor in 1966-67. He was born in Lowell on July 23, 1931, and graduated from Keith Academy and Boston College. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1953 to 1956, then was a social worker at the Tewksbury State Hospital while attending Suffolk Law School in the evenings. He practiced law until his retirement at age 80. He was elected to the city council and served there for eight years. On January 3, 1966, he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a six to three vote. In 1972, he was elected state representative where he served until 1977 when he was elected Northern Middlesex Register of Deeds. He held that office for 18 years until his retirement in 1995. He died in Lowell on September 4, 2023, at age 92. He is buried in St. Mary Cemetery. The city of Lowell dedicated the municipal parking garage at 135 Middlesex Street after him as the Edward J. Early Jr. Parking Facility.

Robert C. Maguire was mayor in 1968-69 and in 1980-81. He was born in Lowell on May 24, 1928, and attended Keith Academy and Providence College. He served with the U.S. Army in Europe during the Korean War. After the service, he worked for New England Power Service Company for many years. He was elected to the city council in 1965. In January 1968 he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a six to three vote. In January 1980, he was again elected mayor, this time on the third ballot. He served a total of 16 years on the city council. In 1983, he was named administrator of the Lowell Regional Transit Authority, a position he held until his retirement in 1993. In 2007, the LRTA dedicated the central building at the Gallagher Transportation Terminal on Thorndike Street after him. He died on March 31, 2018, at age 89. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Richard P. Howe was mayor in 1970-71, 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1994-95. He was born in Lowell on December 30, 1932, and graduated from Keith Academy and Providence College. After serving two years in the U.S. Army, he became a teacher at Lowell High School and attended Suffolk University Law School in the evening. After passing the Massachusetts Bar, he began practicing law in Lowell and continued in that profession until his retirement in 2011. He was elected to the city council in 1965 and then reelected to twenty consecutive terms serving a total of 40 years. On January 5, 1970, he was elected mayor on the fifth ballot on a five to four vote; on January 4, 1988, he was elected mayor unanimously on the first ballot; on January 2, 1990, he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a six to three vote; and on January 3, 1994, he was elected to a fourth term as mayor on an eight to one vote. He died on September 25, 2015, at age 82. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Armand W. LeMay was mayor in 1974-75. He was elected to the city council in 1967 and served until 1987 when he did not seek reelection. In January 1974, he was elected mayor on the first ballot by a five to four vote. Most of his life he worked in construction and eventually was named Superintendent of State Buildings by Governor Michael Dukakis. LeMay, now in his 90s, still lives in Lowell. The city of Lowell dedicated a park at 123 University Avenue after him. (His son, Curtis LeMay, succeeded him on the Lowell City Council and later served on the Greater Lowell Vocational School Committee.)

Leo J. Farley Jr. was mayor in 1976-77. He was born in Lowell on June 1, 1926. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and after the war worked as a guard at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Concord and as a Lowell city planner. He was elected to the city council in 1970 and served until 1977. In January 1976, he was elected mayor on the third ballot on a five to four vote. In 1977, he was elected state representative and served until 1979. He died in Lowell on July 14, 1984, at age 58. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Raymond F. Rourke was mayor in 1978-79. He was born in Lowell on October 10, 1917. He attended Keith Academy and Lowell Commercial College and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He was also a Lowell firefighter for 20 years. He was elected state representative in 1956 and served in that office for 19 years. He resigned from the House in 1975 to become the state’s Deputy Secretary of Transportation, a position he held for ten years. He was elected to the Lowell City Council in 1977 and was elected mayor when that council was inaugurated in January 1978 on the third ballot. He served for eleven years on the city council. He died on May 24, 2004, at age 86. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery. The city named the bridge over the Merrimack River from Wood Street to Pawtucket Boulevard the Rourke Bridge after Ray and his son Timothy, who died in 1982 while serving as a state representative. Also, the Lowell Regional Transit Authority named its parking garage on Westford Street after him as the Raymond Rourke Parking Facility. (Susan Rourke was the spouse of Timothy Rourke and succeeded him as a state representative after this death. She would be the daughter-in-law of Ray. Also, current city councilor Daniel Rourke is not directly related to Ray.)

M. Brendon Fleming was mayor in 1982-83. He was born in Lowell on February 2, 1926. He graduated from Keith Academy and Boston College and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He was a member of the math faculty at UMass Lowell for more than 40 years, having begun teaching at Lowell Technological Institute in 1958. He was elected to the city council in 1969 and served until 1992. He died on May 28, 2016, at age 90, and is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I commented on several articles from the Boston Globe and New York Times with the titles, “Inside Trump’s Great American State Fair”; “NFL ‘Insider’ Whose Access Became the Story”; “Trump Rants Divide Court on Race Bias”; “Israelis Watch Ties With US Coming Loose”; and “Questions swirl around Duck Boat accident.”

A joint motion by Mayor Erik Gitschier and Councilors Corey Robinson and Sean McDonough to “place the Lowell Fire Chief position back into civil service prior to filling this anticipated vacancy” was discussed at length before being defeated with four councilors in favor and seven against.

Two quick observations before getting into the substance of this issue: (1) several councilors spoke cryptically, as if they knew more than they were saying but withheld that information for some reason; and (2) this was another of the council’s recurring proxy fights about supporting or not supporting City Manager Tom Golden.

Back in 2015, the city council, at the request of then City Manager Kevin Murphy, voted to remove the position of fire chief from the civil service system. In its place, the city created a human resources application and selection process that, while fair and equitable, also gave the city manager more say in the selection of the next fire chief.

On Tuesday, the four councilors who voted for the motion – Robinson, McDonough, Sidney Liang, and Mayor Gitschier – argued that the civil service test and related criteria were appropriate measures of skill and suitability, that the city manager would still have some say in the selection, and the protections for the employee afforded by the civil service system were desirable.

At first, councilors who opposed the motion raised procedural issues: The annual civil service test had just been held last month before it was clear there would be an opening in Lowell so local candidates may not have competed. Would the city be forced to take someone from the list who was not from Lowell? If the person hired did not work out, wouldn’t the current system make it easier for the city manager to replace them if necessary? Changing the system would require the legislature to pass home rule legislation which, with the legislature out of session until January, might not be feasible or timely.

Councilor Dan Rourke then got to the heart of the matter by explaining why the system was changed back in 2015. As I understand the civil service process, to fill the office of fire chief, only those who hold the next lowest rank – deputy chief – are eligible to take the test, provided there is more than one deputy chief who signs up for the test. (I assume that if no deputy chiefs or if only one of them signed up for the test, those holding the next lowest rank – captain – would also be eligible.)

As Rourke explained it, the practice in Lowell prior to 2015 was that the deputy chiefs would discretely decide among themselves who would be chief, but then all would sign up to take the test, thereby blocking anyone else from competing. Then on the day of the test, only the deputy designated by their colleagues to be chief would appear for the test while the others did not show up. Since the civil service “multiple candidate” rule applied to registering to take the test, not actually taking it, the one deputy who did appear would get the highest score since theirs was the only score and the choice for the city’s next fire chief would already be made by the time it reached the city manger. Rourke added that this had happened “many times previously in Lowell” and that it allowed “a small group to decide who would be the next fire chief.”

When the roll call on the motion was taken, those who voted against moving the fire chief position into civil service were Councilors Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Belinda Juran, Rita Mercier, Vesna Nuon, Dan Rourke and Kim Scott. As noted above, those voting for the motion were Mayor Gitschier and Councilors Liang, McDonough and Robinson.

****

A motion by Councilor John Descoteaux to take the steps necessary to increase the number of “all alcohol” package store licenses in the city generated an interesting discussion. Descoteaux explained he was recently in a convenience store where another patron was buying a six-pack of beer. The patron told Descoteaux he would have preferred hard liquor, but this store could only sell beer. Descoteaux framed his motion as a way to increase convenience for residents like the one he encountered as well as something that would boost the economy since selling liquor is more lucrative for merchants.

Some councilors spoke approvingly of this as a way of helping small businesses, but others asked how you could ensure that the new licenses went to first time holders and not to entities that already held a dozen or more liquor licenses. Councilor McDonough raised the issue of the geographic distribution of the licenses. In his neighborhood – downtown - there are no liquor stores within reasonable walking distance of most residences. Others echoed that concern, saying many Lowell package stores might be clustered together with the rest spread widely across the city.

Mayor Gitschier was firm in his opposition to any increase citing two reasons: He said every time he visits a school, there seems to be a package store across the street which he said was not a good mix. He also said that in a city plagued by substance abuse, making it easier to buy liquor will not help the social pathologies accompanying that issue.

In the end, the council voted unanimously to refer the motion to the council’s economic development subcommittee to more deeply explore all these concerns and perhaps craft strategies for addressing them. I believe the motion was also referred to the city’s License Commission for a report.

One thing nobody seemed to mention is the seismic shift that’s occurring in America with alcohol consumption. The overarching trend is towards drinking less, particularly among younger people. Some of the reasons for that are prioritizing health and wellness, economic pressures, and changing generational attitudes.

I saw evidence of this firsthand last weekend. A friend from out of town was visiting Boston so we met up at Legal Sea Food for lunch. When I flipped over the menu, I immediately noticed that there were as many choices in the NA (non-alcoholic) beer section as there were in the traditional beer area. (For the record, I ordered an iced tea but really do enjoy Guiness NA).

****

A motion by Councilor McDonough to modify the city ordinance that controls the cost of parking raised some interesting issues. Two years ago, after much study and deliberation, the council amended the parking rate ordinance to automatically increase fees by an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. Because the cost of the garages continuously increases, so must the revenue coming into the system. By making the increases automatic and tied to an external measure (the CPI) councilors sought to avoid having to vote on increases each year. McDonough’s Tuesday motion sought to undo that and require that “all parking rates . . . shall only increase by a majority vote of the city council.”

McDonough’s district includes downtown where many residents must pay for monthly parking in city garages either directly or through their condominium associations. He is the prime recipient of their ire at rate increases, but also for their distress at being deprived of the chance to have their opposition heard in an official setting. Perhaps the main reason the council made this change was to avoid the discomfort of voting for a fee increase at a council meeting packed with people pleading with you not to increase the fee. McDonough countered that by saying that even if the increase was ultimately imposed, if opponents at least had the chance to have their opposition heard they might be less upset than they are about automatic fees.

While McDonough’s point about preserving due process for residents when it comes to fee increases is valid, the unending need for new revenue for the parking fund is a reality. Another reality is that councilors want to stay as councilors and having to vote for repeated fee increases lessens the chance of that happening. Consequently, there could come a time when enough councilors abandoned their fiduciary duty to adequately fund the system in the face of short-term political pressure which would jeopardize city finances.

Which is not to say downtown residents have nothing to complain about. I’ve long thought they are being treated unfairly when it comes to the cost of parking. The city makes huge capital investments to construct parking garages downtown as an important component for economic development. Without the Hamilton Canal Parking Garage, it is doubtful that Draper would be locating its new facility in that district. Because the payoff of new downtown development benefits everyone in the city through higher tax revenues and more jobs, everyone in the city should contribute to the investments the city must make – like new parking garages – to yield that new growth.

However, repaying the bonds that financed the construction of the garages is solely the responsibility of the city’s relatively new parking enterprise fund which is funded solely by parking receipts. Additionally, while downtown residents are likely paying the full fee for their parking passes, others like businesses, students, and city employees often have discounted fees which shift more of the burden to residents.

Over the course of this 30-minute discussion it also became clear there is a disconnect between the parking department and the finance department on implementing the fee increase. This confusion was distressing to some councilors who openly wondered how the council can be sure that ordinances it passes to adjust fees are being consistently implemented. Consequently, the council referred this motion to its finance subcommittee for further investigation.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard Column, a wrote about the “Three Franco Poets from Lowell” event at UMass Lowell last week; reviewed a couple of exhibits I saw at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (“Framing Nature: Gardens and Imagination” and “Art of the Americas, 1700-1800”); and commented on an Op-Ed about the Biden Family’s reentry into the public eye.

****

David Daniel, a prolific author and longtime contributor to richardhowe.com, passed away recently. Three of his close friends, Steve O’Connor, Jerry Bisantz and Jay Atkinson, remembered Dave in heartfelt essays which I combined into a single blog post which you should check out.

There was no Lowell City Council meeting this week, so today’s newsletter contains Part II of my biographical sketches of past mayors of Lowell. Today we start in 1883 with the first mayor of Irish Catholic heritage and go until 1943, with the last mayor elected prior to the city’s adoption of our current Plan E form of government.

For those who missed the first installment of this series, it was published on my website, richardhowe.com, on June 14, 2026.

With that, let’s return to the mayors of Lowell:

John J. Donovan was mayor in 1883 and again in 1884. He was born in Yonkers, New York, on July 28, 1843, and moved to Lowell three years later with his widowed mother. He attended the Washington School and then Lowell High School. While still a student, he worked as a clerk at a grocery store on Central Street, eventually becoming a partner. As an adult, Donovan became associated with several other local businesses and financial institutions including the Lowell Trust Company and Washington Savings Bank. In the early 1880s he was appointed Overseer of the Poor and in 1882 he was elected mayor making him the first person of Irish descent to hold that office. He was reelected the following year. He died at his home at 256 Branch Street on April 21, 1905, at age 61. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Edward J. Noyes was mayor in 1885. He was born in Georgetown, Massachusetts, on September 7, 1841. He came to Lowell at age 7, went through the Lowell public schools then graduated from Columbia Law School. During the Civil War, he enlisted in a cavalry company and was eventually promoted to major. He left the military after being wounded in action and returned to Lowell. He was appointed city marshall and was elected mayor in late 1884. After serving as mayor, he became the superintendent of the Lowell Street Railroad Company and then worked for several Lowell textile mills as a detective. He lived at 182 Butman Road and attended St. Anne’s Episcopal Church. He died in Lowell on January 31, 1925, at age 83. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

James C. Abbott was mayor in 1886 and again in 1887. He was born in Andover, Massachusetts, on June 30, 1823. He graduated from Phillips Academy, Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School. He moved to Lowell and practiced law here for more than 50 years. He was elected mayor in December 1885 and was reelected in the following election. In addition to his law practice, he was president of the First National Bank and the Lowell Mutual Fire Insurance Company. He died in Lowell on July 9, 1903, at age 80. Funeral services were held at his home at 21 Fairmount Street followed by burial in Lowell Cemetery.

Charles D. Palmer was mayor in 1888, 1889 and 1890. He was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on November 25, 1845. He graduated from Boston Latin and Harvard College then, aspiring to be a manufacturing executive, moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts, for a management position at the Washington Mills. In 1880, he married Rowena Hildreth and joined her in Lowell. When her father, Fisher Hildreth, passed away, Charles devoted his time to managing the substantial Hildreth Estate. He did that until he was elected mayor in December 1887. During his time as mayor, he led the efforts to construct a new city hall and city library. Besides his political and business pursuits, Palmer was involved in sports serving as the president of the Massachusetts amateur bowling league and as the New England representative on the national board of review for trotting races. Charles Dana Palmer died in Lowell on September 25, 1909, at age 63. He is buried in the Hildreth Family Cemetery.

George W. Fifield was mayor in 1891 and again in 1892. He was born in Belmont, New Hampshire, on April 25, 1848, and came to Lowell at age 18 as an apprentice machinist. He did well in that field, eventually forming his own company, the Fifield Tool Company which manufactured engine lathes at a plant on Marginal Street. He served two terms as mayor but left politics after that due to the demands of his business. He died at his home at 1180 Middlesex Street on January 30, 1911, at age 62. The cause of death was cancer. His funeral was held at his home, and he is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

John J. Pickman was mayor in 1893 and 1894. He was born in Lowell on January 5, 1850. He graduated from Lowell High School then Harvard Law School. He began practicing law in Lowell in 1871. He was elected to the Lowell School Committee, the state legislature, and in December 1892, mayor of Lowell. He was reelected the following year. Prior to being elected mayor, he was made a special justice at the Lowell Police Court and after his time at City Hall he became a full-time district court judge until his retirement. He died on August 17, 1930, at age 80, at the McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts. The cause of death was pneumonia. His funeral was held at the Eliot Congregational Church, and he is buried in Edson Cemetery.

William F. Courtney was mayor in 1895, 1896 and 1897. He was born in Lowell on December 10, 1855. His family lived in Belvidere but soon moved to Centralville where Courtney lived for the rest of his life. He attended the Lowell public schools and Harvard Law School. He then opened a law office in Lowell and developed a successful legal practice specializing in criminal law. He was active in Democratic politics and served as a state representative and as city solicitor. He was the Democratic nominee for mayor in 1892 and 1893, but he lost both times. He was nominated again in 1894 and won. In 1896, he married Alice Brouillette. Their wedding was the first ceremony held at the newly constructed St. Jean Baptiste Church. Courtney died on April 17, 1899, at age 43. The cause of death was Bright’s Disease, a kidney ailment. His funeral was at St. Michael’s Church, and he is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

James W. Bennett was mayor in 1898. He was born in Newmarket, New Hampshire, on March 21, 1833. He came to Lowell at age 14 to learn carpentry with his uncle, who was a successful builder. Bennett eventually had his own business as a contractor and was admired as a ‘shrewd businessman.” He was a longtime water commissioner and was instrumental in establishing the Lowell waterworks. He also served on the common council and in the state legislature. At some point, the governor appointed Bennett the Commonwealth’s assistant adjutant general, which earned him the title Colonel although he never served in the military. He ran for mayor in 1896 and lost but won in the next election. He ran again but failed to be reelected. He died at his home at 205 Branch Street on April 14, 1903, at age 70. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Jeremiah Crowley was mayor in 1899 and 1900. He was born in Lowell on January 12, 1832. At age 13, he went to work in the Lawrence Mills and learned to be a machinist. In 1860, he began studying law with a local attorney. He was also a member of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment and was involved in the Baltimore Riot on April 19, 1861, that cost Luther Ladd and Addison Whitney their lives. After the war, he was admitted to the bar and had a successful law practice. He also entered politics, serving on the common council, the board of aldermen and as a state senator. He was elected mayor in December 1898 and was reelected the following year. He died in Lowell on September 23, 1901, at age 69. The cause of death was Bright’s Disease, a kidney ailment. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Charles A. R. Dimon was mayor in 1901 and 1902. He was born in Fairfield, Connecticut, on April 27, 1841. He enlisted in a volunteer militia regiment at the start of the Civil War and rose rapidly through the ranks. For much of the war, his commander was General Benjamin Butler of Lowell. Dimon served heroically and fought in numerous battles. By the end of the war, he held the rank of Brevet Brigadier General (“Brevet” was a temporary wartime rank). When Butler formed the United States Cartridge Company in Lowell after the war, he hired Dimon to manage the company which he did through the 1870s and 1880s. He ran for public office, serving on the board of alderman and then as a water commissioner. He was elected mayor in December 1900 and was reelected the following year but died in office during that second term on March 21, 1902, at age 60. He is buried in Fairfield East Cemetery, in Fairfield, Connecticut. (William E. Badger served the rest of Dimon’s term as acting mayor but was not subsequently elected to the office.)

Charles E. Howe was mayor in 1903 and 1904. He was born in Gonic, New Hampshire, (now a part of Rochester) on January 28, 1846. He enlisted in the U.S. Army during the Civil War and was wounded in action at the 2nd Battle of Bull Run. He remained in the army after the war, serving for several years on the western frontier. He left the army and worked in Chicago for a time but in 1871 moved to Lowell to work for his brother’s lumber company. (His brother was John F. Howe of Howe & Burnham Lumber Dealers.) In Lowell, Charles was very active socially, holding offices in many clubs and charities. He was elected to the board of alderman and then served two terms as mayor. He died at his home at 45 Varney Street on July 23, 1911, at age 65. The cause of death was heart disease. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

James B. Casey was mayor in 1905 and 1906. He was born in Lowell on July 20, 1878. As a young man, he worked in various retail jobs but soon entered politics. After serving two terms as mayor, he founded the Ideal Comb Company which had a factory at 157 Lincoln Street. In the late 1920s, he became the director of public relations for the New England Power Association, a position he held until his retirement. He died in Lowell on December 30, 1946, at age 68. His funeral was at St. Margaret’s Church, and he is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Frederick W. Farnham was mayor in 1907 and 1908. He was born in Lowell on November 30, 1860. After graduating from Lowell High School, Frederick was hired by the Lowell City Engineer’s office and, aside from his two terms as mayor, spent 40 years in the engineering department, including several managing the construction of Lowell’s sewer system. He retired in 1937. He died at his home at 571 Westford Street on December 11, 1943, at age 83. His funeral service was held at Morse Funeral Home at 170 Westford Street, and he is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

George H. Brown was mayor in 1909 and again in 1922. He was born in Waterville, Maine, on May 20, 1877. He came to Lowell as a young man and was hired as a police officer. He served in the military during the Spanish-American War. According to local newspapers, “he had a natural flair for stump speaking that captivated voters” which helped him be elected mayor in December 1908. He lost re-election and returned to the police department. When Lowell adopted the commission form of government in the 1901 – a commissioner being like a city councilor who doubles as a department head – he was elected as a commissioner four times. He was again elected mayor in 1922 but only served one year – mayoral terms were two years long by that point – because a charter change cut his term in half. He continued to run for office, including as a city councilor under Plan E, but was never again elected. He died in Lowell on March 3, 1950, at age 72, and is buried in Edson Cemetery.

John F. Meehan was mayor in 1910 and 1911. He was born in Lowell on November 24, 1872. He attended St. Patrick’s elementary school, Lowell High, and St. Bonaventure College where he earned bachelor and master degrees. Returning to Lowell, he first worked for a big Boston building contractor but was soon elected principal of the Butler School. He was elected to the state legislature in 1906 and continued serving there until he was elected mayor. In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Meehan postmaster of Lowell, a position he held until 1922. He died in Lowell on December 14, 1947, at age 75. His funeral was at St. Patrick’s Church, and he is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

James E. O’Donnell was mayor in 1912-13, and again in 1916-17. He was born in Lowell on September 29, 1875. He grew up in Belvidere, attended the Lowell public schools, then graduated from Boston University Law School and started a law practice in Lowell. He was elected to the state legislature and the governor’s council before being elected mayor to a two-year term. He lost reelection but ran again in 1915 and won, serving another two-year term. In 1929, Governor Alvin Fuller appointed O’Donnell a justice of the Lowell District Court where he served for 20 years. He retired in 1952 and moved to Florida where he died on September 15, 1966. He is buried in Coral Gables, Florida. The city of Lowell dedicated the bridge crossing the Merrimack River at School Street and Mammoth Road after him as the James E. O’Donnell bridge.

Dennis J. Murphy was mayor in 1914-15. He was born in Lowell on May 17, 1870. He attended the Lowell public schools, Holy Cross College, and Boston University Law School. He opened a law practice in Lowell and in 1898 he was elected to the Lowell School Committee for three terms. He was elected mayor in the 1913 city election, but when he ran for a second term in 1915, he lost to former mayor James O’Donnell in what the newspaper described as “one of the bitterest campaigns in the city’s political history.” He resumed practicing law, a profession he continued until he died on March 6, 1950, at age 79. His funeral was at the Immaculate Conception Church, and he is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Perry D. Thompson was mayor in 1918-19 and again in 1920-21. He was born in Billerica on July 4, 1874. As a young man, he worked as a grocer and as a salesman for a local lumber company. Elected mayor in December 1917 and reelected two years later, his second term was cut short when voters adopted the new Plan B charter. Thompson ran for mayor under that system but lost to former mayor George Brown. Thompson was later named to the city election commission and in 1930 was elected city clerk, a position he held until his retirement. He died at a Billerica nursing home on May 26, 1952, at age 77. His funeral was at Grace Universalist Church, and he is buried in Edson Cemetery.

John J. Donovan was mayor in 1923-24 and 1925-26. He was born in New York City in 1864. He came to Lowell as a child but as a young man he played baseball professionally on the west coast and boxed professionally. Returning to Lowell he worked as a motorman for the street railway but was appointed to the Lowell police department in 1901. When World War I began, he tried to enlist, was rejected several times because of his age, but was finally able to join a railway engineer regiment that deployed to France where he saw combat. He ran for mayor in 1918 and 1920, losing both times, but won the office in 1922 and was reelected two years later. He sought a third term but was defeated. He returned to the police department where he remained until his retirement in 1929. He died in Lowell on May 17, 1937, at age 74. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Thomas J. Corbett was mayor in 1927-28. He was born in Halifax, England, on May 10, 1883, and came to Lowell as a boy. He became a U.S. citizen at the Lowell Police court in 1904 when he turned 21. He attended Lowell Schools then worked in the mills. In 1914, he was elected to the common council and then to the state legislature. He was elected mayor in December 1926 and served a single two-year term as mayor. After that, he was a city assessor and then superintendent of the local state unemployment office. From 1936 until his retirement in 1953, he was the public relations officer for the Harvard Brewery of Lowell. He died in Lowell on September 24, 1956, at age 73. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Thomas J. Braden was mayor in 1929 and then in 1930-31. (Braden’s first term was just one year because the city switched from holding local elections in December of state election years to holding city elections in November of the odd-numbered year between state elections which fell in even-numbered years.) Thomas Braden was born in Mooers, New York (near Lake Champlain, two miles from the Canadian border) on September 11, 1876. He came to Lowell at age 16. His first job was as an elevator operator, however, when automobiles arrived, he founded a taxi company which he operated through most of his life. He was elected to the common council and then to the board of aldermen before being elected mayor. In 1937, he was elected to the state senate. He died in Lowell on May 23, 1950, at age 78. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery. His obituary observed that he was “one of the most colorful figures in the city’s political history” and “a leading expert on the sport of harness racing.”

Charles H. Slowey was mayor in 1932-33. He was born in Lowell on October 27, 1886. As a young man, he was elected to the state legislature, serving five terms interrupted by military service in World War I. While in the legislature, he founded C. H. Slowey Insurance Agency which he operated for 40 years. He was elected mayor in November 1931 and served a single term. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt appointed him postmaster of Lowell, an office he held for 21 years until his retirement. He died in Lowell on January 10, 1964, at age 77 and is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

James J. Bruin was mayor in 1934-35. He was born in Lowell on October 31, 1898. He worked at the Saco-Lowell Shops while studying law at night, eventually opening his own law office. He was elected to the Lowell School Committee in 1923 and was elected mayor in November 1933. Despite his age, he enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II and rose to the rank of captain. Although he had been a vocal opponent of the Plan E form of government, in 1947 he ran for and won a seat on the council under that system. The following year, he was elected to the state legislature. However, soon after being sworn in to that office, he died on January 26, 1949, at age 50. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

Dewey G. Archambault was mayor in 1936-37 and 1938-39. He was born in Lowell on September 3, 1898. He graduated from Lowell High, Boston College and Suffolk Law School. He also became a licensed funeral director, working for the funeral home founded by his father. He was elected mayor in November 1935 and reelected to another term two years later. He enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II and after the war was appointed the director of employment security by Governor Christian Herter. He died in St. Petersburg, Florida, on January 31, 1969, at age 70. He is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery.

George T. Ashe was mayor in 1940-41 and 1942-43. He was born in Lowell on February 6, 1905. He worked as a laborer as a young man and was then elected to the state legislature. He was elected mayor in November 1939 and reelected two years later. During his second term, a state investigation uncovered contract rigging and financial kickbacks to city employees and Mayor Ashe was ensnared in the investigation. He was found guilty in Middlesex Superior Court and served a short sentence. While on trial, the city held a referendum on whether to change from the strong mayor form of government known as Plan B to the city manager system known as Plan E. The vote to change the system was 16,477 votes for and 14,135 against. Later in life, Ashe worked as the New England sales representative of the Radiator Chemical Corporation of Scottsdale, Arizona. He died on May 8, 1975, at age 70 and is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery.

From the receipt of the city charter in 1836 until 1943, Lowell was governed by a “strong” mayor selected directly by the voters. The Plan E system adopted in 1943 and which is still in place today, made a city manager appointed by the city council the chief executive of the city. The mayor, elected by fellow councilors at the start of each term, serves as the chair of the council and the school committee and as the ceremonial head of the city. In two weeks, I’ll provide biographical sketches of the individuals who have served as mayor under that system.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column on richardhowe.com, I reviewed the novel “Isola” by Allegra Goodman, the reality-based story of a young French noblewoman marooned on a deserted island of the coast of Canada in the 1500s; I commented on the passing of sports radio legend Eddie Andelman; mentioned a NYT review of a big James McNeill Whistler art exhibit in London; mentioned the passing of artist David Hockney; and commented on the latest edition of “Cholla Needles” literary magazine which features poems from Paul Marion and Chath pier Sath; and reviewed the new photo exhibit “LowellScapes” at the Brush Gallery.

In speaking on her motion, Mercier was harshly critical of the fire department, saying the amount of money spent on overtime was “shocking”, that it was “highway robbery”, that the “taxpayers are being held hostage”, that some firefighters “abuse the system for their own personal gain”, that they are “greedy”, and that “she won’t stand for it.”

Councilor Vesna Nuon said he agreed with the motion, especially considering the 4.6% tax increase councilors have imposed on city property owners. Councilor John Descoteaux said it was “a very timely motion.” Councilor Sidney Liang said he agreed with the motion.

Councilor Corey Robinson said he agreed with the motion, but that councilors “shouldn’t kid ourselves.” He laid the blame for high overtime on insufficient staffing, saying that if the city increased the number of firefighters employed by the city, there would be less need for overtime.

Councilor Sean McDonough said that while he, too, is concerned about overtime spending, he didn’t want to create unnecessary work for someone in preparing a new report since the information requested is already being provided to the council each month by the city auditor. He pointed out that the report for last October (just four months into fiscal year 2026 which ran from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026) showed that the fire department had already spent 67% of the money that the council had budgeted for fire department overtime for the entire year. (McDonough’s unstated inference being that if councilors had been paying attention to the information they were already receiving, the large amount of money spent on overtime should not have been surprising.) McDonough added that unlike other city jobs where when a person is out sick the job can be left unfilled, the fire department has “minimum staffing requirements” which require the use of overtime.

Councilor Mercier took umbrage at McDonough’s comments, responding:

“I’m not trying to make work for people. And if it’s already being done, then how hard is it to print that out and give it to 11 people? Is that a burden? It’s a burden to me to see at the end of the budget time and spring it on us. I don’t have the privilege to keep looking and I mean, you know, when you’re not working, maybe you have time to do all these things, but I just would like her, the auditor, to print it out. I don’t know how much more difficult it is. I want to see it in my hand to know that, yeah, it’s getting higher. I don’t think that’s asking too much.”

[Taken from the YouTube transcript of the meeting at 23:18.]

The reference to “not working” was aimed at McDonough who earlier this year resigned his teaching position at Lowell High due to the number of times he had to abstain from city council votes due to the conflict-of-interest rules. McDonough later added, almost plaintively, that he’s starting a new job in September, presumably in another school district.

Mayor Erik Gitschier spoke next, saying that while the overtime spending information was indeed in the auditor’s monthly report, the council needed more information than that. He said the council should more deeply analyze the reasons for high overtime. For instance, how many extra firefighters are there per shift, how many get called in on average per day, how many are out on workers’ comp and for how long, how many are on maternity or paternity leave?

Councilor Dan Rourke pointed out that as the city manager explained several months ago, 110 fire fighters use little overtime, 45 are out a moderate amount of time, and that 30 use every minute of sick time they earn. Rourke said he favors “a full fiscal audit” of the system if that’s what councilors want. He said Mayor Gitschier was correct in the factors he identified. Rourke said the council “should be looking at everything” including vacations and “union leave” (time spent on union activities for which the participants are paid their normal salary, but who are absent from duty which requires replacements to be called in and paid overtime).

Rourke then quizzed the fire chief who explained that the minimum staffing level required 41 firefighters per shift which included three firefighters for each of the city’s 13 trucks plus two deputy chiefs per shift. If all the city’s 213 authorized firefighters were available for duty, there would be 45 or 46 available per shift. This would provide a cushion for each shift meaning that up to four individuals scheduled for duty could be out sick and still leave sufficient personnel – 41 – to meet the minimum staffing level.

However, the city does not have 213 firefighters available for duty now. According to the chief, that number is closer to 200, which leaves the bare minimum on one shift and a single spare person on the other two shifts. In other words, there is no cushion before off duty personnel are called in and paid overtime.

One reason it is difficult for the city to maintain the 213-staffing level is a continuous stream of firefighters filing for retirement. The chief said that as soon as the department bring a new firefighter onboard from the twice-annual fire training academy, it seems that someone else retires.

I assume that long term injury leave is also a factor. Between working on ladders and roofs or slipping on ice that coats everything in the aftermath of a winter fire, or straining to lift a stretcher, “normal” working conditions for fire fighters inevitably lead to more injuries than among the average municipal worker.

Still, the distribution of sick time usage among fire fighters is not even. Are the 30 or so fire fighters who use all their sick time more prone to injury than their peers who use little sick time? There has long been suspicion – never proven as far as I can tell – that some fire fighters game the minimum staffing rules by coordinating their sick time usage with colleagues so that when Fire Fighter A calls in sick on Day 1, Fire Fighter B gets called in to replace them and is paid overtime, then on Day 2, Fire Fighter B reciprocates by calling in sick, causing Fire Fighter A to be called in a paid overtime. Both A and B have worked a normal number of hours, but both have been paid overtime for one of their shifts.

A “full fiscal audit” that either documented such abuses or proved that they were not occurring would be helpful. But that’s unlikely to happen for at least two reasons. First, collective bargaining rules protect employee confidentiality to a degree that likely would paralyze such an inquiry. Second, it’s doubtful that (some) councilors really want to dig into this issue.

There was a Rip Van Winkle quality to Tuesday night. Just three weeks ago at the May 26, 2026, council meeting, City Manager Tom Golden made an impassioned plea for support in his efforts to curb what he framed as the abuse of sick time that was driving the exorbitant cost of fire department overtime. The council not only failed to back up Golden but also instructed him to go back and work it out which he did. That sent a clear message that there would be no meaningful pushback from the council on fire department overtime. Now with the time for any meaningful response already passed, we suddenly have a pack of born again fiscal watchdogs on the council.

That said, the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the fire fighters by which the city agreed to minimum staffing levels regardless of the cost ties the city’s hands in this conflict. That was apparent when, under the threat of fire fighter layoffs last month, the union obtained a judicial restraining order that essentially prohibited layoffs and any reduction in per shift staffing. Anyone who says, “the city should negotiate that provision out of the contract” has never been involved in union negotiations since, once a benefit as lucrative of that makes it into a contract, it’s nearly impossible to get it out.

In the end, public opinion counts for a lot so the more light can be shed on staffing procedures and fire fighter absenteeism, the better voters will be able to assess performance of councilors on this issue.

****

In other matters, councilors discussed the practicalities of providing air conditioning in city schools that don’t already have it; debated how Community Preservation Act funding has been allocated; and discussed an upcoming public forum on data centers which will give residents an opportunity to ask questions and share feedback with the city’s Planning Department. That forum is Monday, June 29, 2026, at 6pm at the Butler School at 1140 Gorham Street.

****

As challenging as Lowell’s fiscal road ahead may be, it perhaps got a little less dire on Thursday when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court invalidated the proposal scheduled to be on this November’s state election ballot that would reduce the state income tax from the current 5% down to 4%. City Manager Golden previously had warned that if this referendum passed, the effect on the city of Lowell’s budget would be catastrophic. With the SJC now invalidating the question, that risk seems to have been removed, at least until the next fiscal crisis arises.

****

Lowell’s Franco-American Festival Week kicks off today. I’m especially interested in an event tomorrow night (Monday, June 22, 2026) called “Across the Years: Three Franco Poets from Lowell” which begins at 5:30pm at UMass Lowell’s Coburn Hall, Room 255, at 850 Broadway (on South Campus). The three poets featured are Dr. Joseph H. Roy (1865-1931) and contemporary poets Suzanne Beebe and Paul Marion. The event is free, open to the public, and will be moderated by Dr. Mercedes Baillargeon of the university’s Department of World Languages and Cultures.

****

This week in my Seen and Heard column I wrote about a recent visit to the Boott Cotton Mills Museum; shared my thoughts on the NBA Finals including why I was cheering for the New York Knicks; commented on a Dan Shaughnessy column speculating on why the World Cup isn’t treated as a big deal around here; and noted the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Freedom Trail in Boston and reminisced about efforts to create something similar in Lowell.

The Lowell City Council is now on its summer meeting schedule. From June through September the council will meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month rather than weekly as is the case the rest of the year. For the non-meeting weeks (and due to a calendar quirk, this is one of them), this newsletter shifts to Lowell political history to provide some context for current issues.

How we select our mayor has been debated by this council and by the public. Since 1943 when the Plan E form of government was adopted in Lowell, the mayor has been elected by a majority vote of the city council at the start of each term. However, there is rising interest in changing that method to allow voters to directly elect the mayor.

But my topic today is not how we elect our mayor. Instead, it is about the people who have served as mayor of the city throughout its 200-year history. By my count, 84 different individuals have held that office, although that is a difficult number to pin down.

Beginning today and continuing for the next two non-council meeting Sundays, I will publish brief biographical sketches of these 84 people. Because there are so many, I have divided them into three groups:

• From the receipt of the city charter in 1836 until just before the election of the first “immigrant” mayor in 1883;

• From the first “immigrant” mayor in 1883 until the adoption of Plan E in 1943;

• From 1943 to the present.

First, a couple of footnotes: This is Lowell’s bicentennial which means our government was born in 1826. However, that initial charter was for a town which was governed by a board of selectmen without a mayor. Because of Lowell’s rapid growth, ten years later local leaders petitioned the state legislature for a city charter which was granted in 1836. The form of government created then consisted of a mayor elected directly by voters and a two-part legislature consisting of a board of aldermen and a common council. Both were elected by ward, however, there was just one alderman per ward but multiple common councilors. The number of wards and common councilors changed over time as did the power of the mayor and the legislators, but that will be a topic for another day.

With that, let’s get to know the mayors of Lowell:

Elisha Bartlett was mayor in 1836 and again in 1837 (for many years the mayoral term was just one year). Bartlett was born in 1804 in Smithfield, Rhode Island, and earned a medical degree at Brown University. After studying for a year in Paris, he came to Lowell and established a medical practice. He was an excellent speaker and became active in public affairs. When Lowell received its city charter in 1836, Bartlett was nominated by the Whig Party as its mayoral candidate (local elections were on a partisan basis back then). He defeated Eliphalet Case, the Democratic candidate. After Bartlett completed his second term as mayor, he stepped away from politics and traveled the country to lecture at medical schools and devoted much of his time to writing medical textbooks. However, illness limited his activities, so he moved back to Rhode Island where he died in 1855 at age 50. He is buried in Slatersville Cemetery in Slatersville, Rhode Island.

Luther Lawrence was mayor in 1838 and again in 1839. He was born in 1778 in Groton, Massachusetts, and graduated from Harvard College in 1801. He studied law and was elected to the state legislature several times, serving as Speaker of the House in 1822. He and his brothers (William, Abbott and Amos) became successful and wealthy in Boston retail and banking. In 1830, they invested heavily in the mills of Lowell including the one named for them. Luther moved to Lowell in 1831 to oversee the family’s interests here. In 1838, the Whig Party nominated him for mayor. He won the election and was reelected in 1839. However, on April 17, 1839, just two weeks into his second term, he was walking through a building of the Middlesex Mills (located where the Inn & Conference Center now stands) and fell into a waterwheel pit, striking his head and dying within moments. He is buried in Groton Cemetery in Groton, Massachusetts.

Elisha Huntington was president of the Lowell Common Council in 1839 so became mayor upon the death of Luther Lawrence. Huntington was elected mayor in his own right in 1840, and elected again in 1841, 1844, 1845, 1852, 1856, and 1858, serving a total of eight years as mayor. He was born in Topsfield, Massachusetts in 1796 and graduated from Dartmouth College in 1815 and Yale Medical School in 1823. He came to East Chelmsford to establish his medical practice. When East Chelmsford became Lowell in 1826, Huntington was elected to the school committee and then to the common council. After he left elected office, he experienced poor health and died of apoplexy (a stroke) in 1865 at age 69. He is buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. Massachusetts.

Nathaniel Wright was mayor in 1842 and 1843. He was born in Sterling, Massachusetts, in 1785, and graduated from Harvard College in 1808. Wright came to East Chelmsford to study law with Asahel Stearns, a prominent lawyer and politician in the region. When Lowell received its town charter in 1826, Wright served four consecutive terms as a selectman and was the first to represent Lowell in the state legislature. In 1842, he was elected mayor on a “citizen’s ticket” and was reelected the following year as the nominee of the Whig party. He left politics after that but continued to practice law in Lowell. He died here in 1858 at age 73 of heart disease. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Jefferson Bancroft was mayor in 1846, 1847 and 1848, making him the first to serve three consecutive terms as mayor. He was very popular and faced little opposition in his elections. Bancroft was born in Warwick, Massachusetts, in 1803. He worked on farms until 1824 when he came to East Chelmsford to work in the woolen mill of Thomas Hurd (which became the Middlesex Mills). Before his election as mayor, he held several government positions including deputy sheriff, tax collector, chief engineer of the fire department, and served on the common council and the board of aldermen. He died in Tyngsborough in 1890 at age 86 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Josiah B. French was mayor in 1849 and 1850. He was born in Billerica in 1799 and worked from a young age which limited his formal schooling. In 1831, he began a “staging” business which involved wagon transportation. The business thrived. French held the contract to carry mail between Boston and Montreal and ran regular passenger service between Lowell and Concord, New Hampshire. However, the growth of the railroad in the early 1840s cut into his business and he gravitated to politics, serving on the common council, as a state representative, and as a county commissioner before being elected mayor. He died in Lowell in 1876 at age 76. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

James H. B. Ayer was mayor in 1851. He was born in Haverhill, Massachusetts, in 1788. He taught school in Amesbury but came to East Chelmsford in 1823 to work for the Merrimack Manufacturing Company. He rose through management ranks and was made paymaster for the Locks and Canals Corporation. Before Lowell received its town charter, Ayer was elected selectman in Chelmsford and then held that office in Lowell after it was chartered. He left politics after his service as mayor and died in Lowell in 1864 at age 76. He is buried in Corner Cemetery in Amesbury, Massachusetts. (He does not appear to be a relative of James C. Ayer, the city’s patent medicine magnate.)

Sewall G. Mack was mayor in 1853 and 1854. He was born in Wilton, New Hampshire, in 1813 and moved to Lowell in 1840 to open a retail business with Daniel Cushing called Cushing and Mack. He served several terms as a common councilor and as an alderman. In his first election as mayor in 1853, he defeated his opponent by a handful of votes but did not receive the minimum number needed to win the election under the rules in effect at the time. The election was repeated 20 days later, and Mack received enough votes to win the office. The following year, he achieved the minimum vote threshold despite facing three opponents. Mack died at Mont Vernon, New Hampshire, in 1903 at age 89. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Ambrose Lawrence was mayor in 1855. He was born in Boscawen, New Hampshire, in 1816 and lived on a farm until he was 17. He worked in a cotton mill in New Hampshire until 1837 when he came to Lowell to work in the Suffolk Mills as a machinist. The following year he moved to Georgia to learn dentistry and then returned to Lowell to open a dental practice. He was elected to the common council and the board of alderman before being nominated for mayor by the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings), a political party running on an anti-immigrant platform. In the state and local elections that year, Know Nothing candidates, including Ambrose Lawrence running for mayor of Lowell, won overwhelming victories across Massachusetts. He only served a single term as mayor then left politics to invent and manufacture dental treatment devices. He moved between Boston and Lowell and died in Boston in 1893 at age 76. He is buried in Mount Hope Cemetery in Roslindale, Massachusetts. (He does not appear to be a relative of Luther Lawrence, the city’s second mayor.)

Stephen Mansur was mayor in 1857. He was born in Temple, New Hampshire, in 1799 and grew up working on a farm. He came to East Chelmsford in 1822 to work on enlarging the Pawtucket Canal, then moved permanently to Lowell in 1830 when he opened a hardware store. Over time, he served as a state representative, a common councilor, and an alderman. In 1857, he defeated former Mayor Huntington by a small margin and served just one term. He died in 1863 at age 64 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

James Cook was mayor in 1859. He was born in Preston, Connecticut, in 1794 and fought in the War of 1812. After the war, he worked in woolen mills in Connecticut and Northampton, Massachusetts. In 1830, he moved to Lowell to run the Hurd Woolen Mills for the next 15 years. After a brief move to Vermont to run a mill there, he returned to Lowell to oversee the Middlesex Mills. In 1858, he opened an insurance company which was very successful and which he operated for the rest of his life. His one term as mayor of Lowell was the only political office he held. He died in Lowell inn 1884 at age 89 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Benjamin C. Sargeant was mayor in 1860 and again in 1861. He was born in Unity, New Hampshire, in 1823 and moved to Lowell at age 16 to work in a bookstore. He moved to New York City to work in another bookstore but returned to Lowell three years later to open his own book and stationary shop. He was elected to two terms on the common council before his two terms as mayor. He had many friends among the Irish people of Lowell who renamed their volunteer militia company the Sargeant Light Guard in his honor. He died in Lowell in 1870 at age 47 after a long illness. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Hocum Hosford was mayor of Lowell in 1862, 1863, and 1864. He was born in Charlotte, Vermont, in 1825 and worked on the family farm until he was 20 years old. He had limited formal schooling but was self-educated and was hired as the town schoolteacher when he was 18. He moved to Lowell in 1845 and worked in several dry goods stores. He went into business with Arthur G. Pollard operating a retail establishment that eventually became Pollard’s Department Store. Hosford was elected to the common council and the board of aldermen. When he was elected mayor in 1862 at age 36, he was the youngest person to have held the office to that point. After serving as mayor, he was a director of and actively involved in the operation of the Boston and Lowell Railroad. He died in Lowell in 1881 at age 55. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Josiah G. Peabody was mayor in 1865, 1866, and 1872. He was born in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1808, but moved to Haverhill, Massachusetts, when he was 12 years old to work on a farm and attend school. In 1824, he came to East Chelmsford to learn the carpentry trade and help construct the buildings of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company. In 1833, he went into business as a contractor and builder and constructed many churches, mill buildings, and homes in Lowell and throughout New England. In 1858, he helped found the Wamesit Steam Mills which made wooden doors, sashes and blinds. He served several terms in the state legislature, the governor’s council, the board of aldermen and the common council. He left politics after his final term as mayor. He died in Lowell in 1898, at age 89. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

George F. Richardson was mayor in 1867 and again in 1868. He was born in Tyngsborough in 1829 and moved to Lowell when he was 15. He attended Phillips Exeter and graduated from Harvard College in 1850 and Harvard Law School in 1853. He went into practice in Boston but returned to Lowell in 1858 to practice law with his brother, Daniel Richardson. He served on the common council and the board of aldermen during the Civil War. After serving as mayor, he was elected to the state senate for two terms. He died in Lowell in 1912 at age 82 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Jonathan P. Folsom was mayor in 1869 and again in 1870. He was born in Tamworth, New Hampshire, in 1820 and came to Lowell in 1840 to work in a dry goods store. In 1850, he opened his own store in Lowell which he operated for the rest of his life. He served several terms on the common council both before and after his service as mayor. He also was a state representative for several terms. He died in Haverhill, Massachusetts, in 1893 at age 72. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Edward F. Sherman was mayor in 1871. He was born in Acton, Massachusetts, in 1821. His family moved to Lowell when he was a child. As a teenager, he taught school and then enrolled in Dartmouth College, graduating in 1843. He returned to Lowell to study law and then became a law partner with Tappan Wentworth. Sherman served on the school committee for several terms before being elected mayor. Soon after taking office, he became ill which limited his activities. He served his full term but died in early 1872 at age 51. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Francis Jewett was mayor in 1873, 1874, and 1875. He was born in Nelson, New Hampshire, in 1820. He worked on the family farm until he was 28 years old. He then apprenticed himself to a butcher in Middlesex Village (which was still part of Chelmsford but was later annexed to Lowell) and eventually opened his own butcher shop which was a thriving business throughout his life. Jewett served on the common council and board of aldermen before being elected mayor. After that office, he served as a state senator and a governor’s councilor. He died in Lowell in 1896 at age 75 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Charles A. Stott was mayor in 1876 and again in 1877. He was born in 1835 on River Street, which was then part of Dracut but eventually was annexed to Lowell. After graduating from Lowell High School, he became the paymaster of the Belvidere Woolen Mills which was owned by his father. He served with the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment during the Civil War. After the war, he resumed working with his father at the family woolen mill. Stott’s service as mayor was the only elected office he held or sought. He died in Lowell in 1912 at age 77 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

John A. G. Richardson was mayor in 1878 and again in 1879. He was born in Lowell in 1840 and served with the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment in the Civil War. He worked as a clerk and eventually opened his own retail store on Middlesex Street. After serving as mayor, he experienced ill health and moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to live with his son who had established a thriving law practice there. Mayor Richardson died in Minneapolis in 1895 at age 55. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

Frederic T. Greenhalge was mayor in 1880 and again in 1881. He was born in Clitheroe, England, in 1842, but moved to Lowell as a child when his father, a master cloth printer, was recruited to work in the Lowell mills. Frederic graduated from Lowell High and was at Harvard College when his father died, forcing Frederic to leave school to support his mother and sister. He taught school but also studied law under a local attorney and eventually opened his own law office. He served in the army during the Civil War and was elected to the common council and the school committee before being elected mayor. In 1889, he was elected to Congress and in 1893, he was elected governor of Massachusetts. He was reelected the following year but died in office of kidney disease at age 53. He is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

George Runels was mayor in 1882. He was born in Warner, New Hampshire, in 1823, and came to Lowell to become a stone cutter. However, his restlessness led him on several adventures including serving as a crew member on a whaling ship in the Pacific where he was shipwrecked then rescued. He returned to Lowell in 1845 but left for the California gold rush in 1850. He finally settled down in Lowell in 1855, starting a booming granite business that he operated for the rest of his life. He was elected to the common council and the board of aldermen before being elected to his single term as mayor. He died in Lowell in 1911 at age 88 and is buried in Lowell Cemetery.

To be continued . . .

****

It was an active week on richardhowe.com:

There were two posts about the forthcoming Franco-American week that begins on June 21, 2026. The first has the schedule for the week; the second is an essay by Paul Marion titled, “Why Do I Tell the Franco-American Story”

Leo Racicot shared a tribute to the Lowell Regional Transit Authority and its employees.

Reporting from Paris, Louise Peloquin wrote about the technical difficulties that befell an incredible public art installation there.

In this week’s Seen & Heard column, I wrote about my visit to the Concord Museum; commented on a podcast exploring the potential benefits of AI; reviewed Conan O’Brien’s Harvard commencement address; and reviewed “The World’s Banker,” a biography of James Wolfensohn, a former president of the World Bank.

As was the case last week, much of the council’s effort Tuesday night tried to prod the city manager into reversing several other layoffs, especially the historic board administrator, a 30-year employee within the Department of Planning and Development. Several councilors commented on all the communications they received from people, most notably developers, lobbying for the return of this employee. Councilors also questioned DPD Director Yovanni Baez Rose on the ability of her department to process historic board related development projects and to enforce historic construction standards without this employee. She responded that she would have preferred not to have cut anyone, but the fiscal realities dictated that a reduction had to be made. She said that the remaining employees can perform all the necessary duties. Although he made no promises, City Manager Tom Golden hinted several times that he hopes to find the means to bring back this employee and others sometime this summer.

The council’s unease with employee layoffs was like a chorus in a long concert performance. The same refrain was endlessly repeated. At one point, a clearly frustrated (with his colleagues) Councilor Dan Rourke moved that the council raise property taxes by 7.5 percent rather than the 4.5 percent that had previously been voted on. Rourke’s motion was ruled out of order, but his message, that if you want to hire back employees you must raise more money to pay for them, was quite clear to all but a few of his colleagues.

Councilor Rita Mercier also seemed to lose patience, at one point moving to forego additional department-by-department reviews in favor of adopting the budget as one lump sum. Others seemed receptive to that, however, several councilors interjected cuts they wanted to make as part of the lump sum vote. The resulting debate over the motion and the various amendments seemed to take longer than if the council had just continued its department-by-department pathway, an observation Mayor Erik Gitschier made several times.

At one point, an additional cut of $500,000 from the Department of Public Works was proposed. With the council poised to vote on that, someone suggested they find out what exactly they were cutting before cutting it. The DPW commissioner explained that money was used for repairs to schools across the district. He said, “That number was a million dollars this year and it’s down to the $500,000. So this would be awful. It would be awful to cut that.”

That dissuaded councilors from making that cut and from making a single lump sum vote, so they returned to the department-by-department review. Next, they focused on a $200,000 item that was primarily for a newly created but still unfilled Director of Plant Services position within DPW. City Manager Golden explained that people have applied for the position and the city is prepared to make an offer to someone pending the finalization of the city budget. It seems this position anticipates a combined maintenance department in which school custodians (now part of the school department) would be absorbed into DPW (which is responsible for repairs within the schools). Councilors have long expressed a desire to get this combined maintenance department up and running but the School Department and the unions involved have been less enthusiastic about the idea, which doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Nevertheless, the city manager proposed this position now, partly because of past concerns expressed by this council that when the pricey new addition to Lowell High is turned over to the city, primary responsibility for operating and maintaining the sophisticated, state-of-the-art, mechanical systems that have been installed will fall entirely on the city and whoever filled this position could help with that. It’s true that the city’s track record of maintaining new buildings is not good which leads to repairs sooner than expected and the headache of unreliable buildings but given the pressure on this year’s budget, councilors deemed that new position to be a luxury and cut it.

Mayor Gitschier voted against several departmental budgets because they contained employees who had been hired under the ARPA program but were now being transitioned to full time city employees whose salaries come from the regular city budget. I believe Gitschier had made the point throughout the ARPA spending process that the money should not be used to create needs that would eventually be shifted to the city budget. By voting against these departments, he was consistent with his previous position, although the new positions were ratified by the full council despite his opposition.

The city council’s involvement in the annual budget process has evolved over time. Many years ago, councilors tended to make more cuts, but sometimes that was about score-settling more than strategic planning. Then for a while councils just took an up or down vote on the bottom line of the budget without reviewing each department. In explanation, they cited their confidence in the wisdom of the city manager and the ongoing communication between the city manager and the city council throughout the year rather than just at budget time. The current method of reviewing each department with councilors asking any questions they may have seems like a reasonable compromise between the two approaches.

Given the size, complexity and expense of city government, the budgetary approval process we witnessed over the past two meetings seems inefficient and a little performative, but it gives the public a chance to observe councilors asking questions and receiving answers to fiscal questions. In what might be a leap of faith, the public should have some confidence that if there was substantial waste in the budget, councilors would discover it during their review process.

Nevertheless, the only real control the council exerts over the budget process is when they hire a city manager. The day-to-day decisions on hiring, spending, and management made by the city manager have a much greater impact on the cost of operating the city of Lowell than whatever cuts councilors might make in their budget sessions.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reported on an Atlantic magazine profile of the controversial tech billionaire David Sacks; on coverage of Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical on artificial intelligence and technology; a Boston Globe profile of historian Jill Lepore, who just won the Pulitzer Prize in that field; a New York Times report on the ruler of Cambodia granting a pardon to an imprisoned rival; a story of the demise of Schlitz beer; and the obituary of the guy behind the famous “Where’s the beef?” ad from the 1980s.

****

On Tuesday, June 11, 2026, at 6pm in the Luna Theater (in the former Mill No. 5), students at Lowell Community Charter Public School will present a “Reading Frederick Douglass Together” event. In recent years, many communities have come together to perform public readings of Douglass’ historic speech, “What to the Slave is the 4th of July.” Professor Bob Forrant will open the program and then lead a discussion after the reading that will engage the audience in considering the speech’s historical and contemporary context and its enduring relevance.

The event is free but there are limited seats in the Luna Theater so you must sign up in advance. You can do that at this link.

****

Yesterday was the 82nd anniversary of the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Better known as D-Day, the operation was a critical step in the defeat of Germany in World War II, but it came at a high cost. At least ten servicemembers from Lowell were killed in action in the invasion or in the fighting in Normandy immediately after. Here are their names and their stories:

Donald E. Axon – Born in Lowell in 1923, Donald Edward Axon lived at 15 Seventh Avenue with his widowed father and four siblings. His father worked in a cotton mill and Donald worked for the Daggett Chocolate Company in Cambridge. A Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Donald was assigned to the 507th Port Battalion. During the invasion of Normandy, his unit landed on Omaha Beach during the initial D-Day assault. Tasked with establishing a supply line under heavy German fire, Donald was killed in action during the chaotic struggle for the beachhead. He was 21 years old. He is buried it the Normandy American Cemetery in France.

Calvin Curtis – Born in Lowell in 1921, Calvin Warren Curtis grew up at 21 Cambridge Street with his widowed mother and six siblings. He eventually moved to Wakefield and worked for First National Stores in Somerville. A medic in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division, Calvin parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was killed in action on June 6, 1944, at age 22. He is buried in the Normandy American Cemetery in France.

Edward Desmarais – Born in Lowell in 1911, Edward Desmarais lived at 40 Wilbur Street with his wife, the former Doris Coullard, and worked for Canada Dry Ginger Ale Company in Chelmsford. A Machinist Mate 2nd Class in the U.S. Navy, Edward was assigned to Construction Battalion Detachment 1006 (a “Seabee” unit) and landed in Normandy on D-Day. He was killed in action days later in Cherbourg, France, on June 15, 1944, at age 33. He is buried in Normandy American Cemetery.

John W. Harding – Born in Lowell in 1926, John William Harding lived at 4 L Street with his parents. A Seaman 2nd Class in the U.S. Navy, John was assigned to the landing ship USS LST-376. On June 9, 1944, off the coast of Normandy, France, John’s ship was sunk by a German torpedo boat. He was lost at sea. His name is inscribed on the Tablets of the Missing at the Normandy American Cemetery in France.

John J. Keter – Born in Lowell in 1923, John J. Keter grew up at 16 Merrill Street with his parents and two siblings. His parents were born in Syria and his father worked in a worsted mill. A Private in the U.S. Army, John was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division. He was killed in action on June 8, 1944, at age 20, in Normandy. John is buried in the Normandy American Cemetery. In 1947, Lowell dedicated the intersection of Walker and Branch Streets to his memory as John Keter Square. Ten months later, his brother Thomas was killed in action in Luxembourg.

Joseph J. Lachance – Born in Quebec in 1908, Joseph Jacques Lachance lived at 485 Moody Street with his widowed mother and his brother. Both Joseph and his mother worked in a shoe factory. A Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Joseph was killed in action in France on June 12, 1944, at age 36. He is buried in St. Joseph Cemetery in Chelmsford. In 1948, Lowell dedicated the intersection of Merrimack and Suffolk Streets to his memory as Joseph Lachance Square.

Alphege L. Laporte – Born in Lowell in 1922, Alphege Louis Laporte lived at 66 West Fourth Street with his mother and three siblings. A Private in the U.S. Army, he was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. He was killed in action at Normandy on June 14, 1944, at age 22. He is buried in Normandy American Cemetery. In 1947, Lowell dedicated the intersection of West Fourth and Albion Streets to his memory as Alphege Laporte Square.

Nicholas F. Moumousis – Born in Lowell in 1911, Nicholas Fred Moumousis grew up at 177 Adams Street with his parents and seven siblings. His parents were both born in Greece and his father worked in a cotton mill. In 1935, Nicholas, also known as Nicola Nargo, moved to New York City and worked as a ballet dancer with the Metropolitan Opera Company until he enlisted in the U.S. Army in January 1942. A Private in the 82nd Airborne Division, Nicholas parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was killed in action there on June 24, 1944, at age 32. He is buried in Westlawn Cemetery.

John J. Shaughnessy – Born in Lowell in 1917, John Joseph Shaughnessy lived at 1091 Gorham Street with his parents and his two siblings. His father worked for the railroad. John worked at Magowan Educator Food Company on Jackson Street. A 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, John was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division. He was killed in action at Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944, at age 26. He is buried in St. Patrick Cemetery. In 1957, Lowell dedicated the John J. Shaughnessy Elementary School on Gorham Street to his memory. The original school was demolished and reconstructed in 1991 with the new school retaining his name.

Frank Sousa – Born in Lowell in 1922, Frank Sousa, also known as Frank Souza, lived at 49 Auburn Street with his parents and five siblings. His parents were born in Portugal and his father worked in a cotton mill. A Coxswain in the U.S. Navy, Frank was killed in action at sea on D-Day, June 6, 1944. He was 21 years old. He is buried in Normandy American Cemetery.

These biographical sketches are taken from my recent book, Regret To Inform You: The Human Cost of World War II in Lowell, Mass., which is available as a free ebook on my website. A paper copy may also be ordered at this link.

In last week’s newsletter I wrote that an early motion by Councilor Dan Rourke during the May 19 meeting to “table” a transfer of money into the fire department overtime account signaled difficulties with the fire department budget. This week, Rourke made an early motion to take that transfer “off the table” which passed unanimously as did the substantive vote on the transfer, signaling that the impasse had been overcome, if only temporarily.

While these two votes dealt with overtime spending which in turn is driven by absenteeism, the primary cause of the current friction was City Manager Tom Golden’s plan to lay off six firefighters as part of citywide layoffs of personnel to achieve a balanced budget for the coming fiscal year.

Sometime since last week’s meeting, Golden and the president of the firefighter’s union had a one-on-one meeting and reached an accommodation that avoids any firefighter layoffs in exchange for an ambiguous promise by the union to, according to Golden, “work with their members to explore opportunities to financially assist the city and to try to lower overtime costs.”

The president of the firefighter’s union then spoke. While he complemented the city manager for meeting again after the recent impasse and for finding a way to avoid fire department layoffs, he also made it clear that issues remained. He emphasized the need to maintain 203 firefighters in the city.

An article in Thursday’s Lowell Sun clarified why the union so firmly defended that number. “City Council restores 6 firefighter positions to Lowell budget” by Melanie Gilbert covered the council’s Tuesday evening ratification of the city manager’s revised fire department budget that dispensed with the six layoffs. The Sun story then added an important detail: Last week, the fire union sued the city over the proposed layoffs and obtained a preliminary injunction from a Superior Court judge that ordered the city to “fund minimum-staffing requirements for the Lowell Fire Department as agreed upon in Article XV, Section 5 and 6 of the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Union for fiscal year 2027.”

Earlier Tuesday evening, some councilors had alluded to a court order, but it was unclear to me what they were talking about until the Sun article appeared. Not having seen the contract nor the complaint filed with the court to initiate the lawsuit, it’s hard to comment on the merits of either.

I will say that the standard for obtaining a court injunction is steep. One requirement is that the judge find the plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits of the dispute. Also, for a judge to order a legislative body (the city council) to fund a particular department seems like an extreme measure given the concept of separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. For a judge to have ruled this way suggests it was a black and white issue of contract law. That in turn prompts the question, why did the city administration try to do this when the proposed firefighter layoffs, according to the motion judge at least, would be a clear violation of the union contract.

I think most councilors were more interested in getting this dispute behind them, so no one asked that question, at least not publicly. (And given council sentiments, it’s likely the layoffs would have been rescinded even without the court order.)

One question that was asked was how will the salaries of the six un-laid off firefighters be paid? Where did that additional money come from?

To make the math work, the city’s budget writers jumped on the slippery slope of boosting their projected revenue, specifically the amount of state aid the city is expected to receive.

How the state budget is finalized is a secretive backroom process controlled by a handful of legislative leaders. Here’s how I understand it to work: Early in the spring, the governor announces their budget recommendation for the fiscal year. Legislators pay no attention to that document. Instead, each branch of the legislature – the State Senate and the House of Representatives – issues their own budget proposals. Those two documents are the foundation of the final state budget. If both the House and the Senate agree on a line-item amount, then that amount is likely to carry over to the final state budget.

But what if the numbers differ? Then the disputed line item goes to a “conference committee” which I believe consists of the Senate president, the speaker of the House, the chairs of the two ways and means committee, and probably the Secretary of Administration and Finance. This committee meets in private and resolves the disputed line-items. Sometimes the House number prevails; sometimes the Senate number does; and other times there’s some compromise number. While the state fiscal year begins on July 1, 2026, the legislature rarely finalizes its budget by that date. In recent years, it has been finalized in mid-July, but it could be later.

Which brings us back to the Lowell city budget. The House budget had a lower amount for local aid than the Senate budget. Because Lowell prudently opts to be conservative in its revenue projections, the original city budget proposal used the lower House number. Now, to pay for the six firefighters whose layoffs were to be rescinded, the city simply swapped the lower House number with the higher Senate number, hoping that the higher number is the one that emerges from the conference committee. If it does not, then the city will have to make further cuts or dip into its reserve fund to make up the difference.

****

Councilors asked many questions during the three-hour meeting, but only a few attempts were made to cut anything from the budget. As far as I could tell, only one – a reduction of $15,000 – was made.

A handful of councilors tried to identify nonessential items in the hope that sufficient savings could be found to reduce the number of employees who were laid off. While it’s understandable that councilors want to keep city employees from losing their jobs, I don’t recall any framing of proposed cuts to reduce the size of government and thereby lessen the tax burden on residents.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a hypocrite who is happy to receive government services but then balks at paying for them. I appreciate all that government does for me and the community and I acknowledge those services must be paid for. But I am a realist when it comes to the cost of providing those services. The primary driver of the cost of local government has always been salaries. Employees should be paid a living wage and, to attract and retain top quality employees, the salaries paid should be competitive. However, to do that, the rate of increase of salaries and benefits will always exceed the amount of new revenue, so the only way to keep things in balance is to gradually shrink the size of the city workforce while simultaneously using technology and innovative management to increase the quantity and quality of services delivered to the public. At some point, that is unsustainable, but my sense is the city is nowhere near that point. In fact, it seems that the city remains on a trajectory to add positions, not cut them, notwithstanding the recent layoffs.

In any case, the council will resume its review of the budget on Tuesday night. I’ll report on what happens in next Sunday’s newsletter.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reported on last Saturday’s “Lowell in World War II” walking tour which drew 30 people; commented on an America’s Bookclub interview of Candice Millard, a best selling American historian; I reported on the big Google I/O conference at which the company announced big changes to its search function; I reviewed the final episode of The Late Show with Steven Colbert; and noted the obituary of former Congressman Barney Frank.

When this item was finally reached nearly two hours into the meeting, City Manager Tom Golden made a passionate (and sometimes pained) presentation that reminded me of a sadder version of the more upbeat “state of the city” addresses that city managers give each year.

Golden began by saying one of his primary responsibilities as city manager is to protect the long-term financial stability of the city. The city is heavily dependent on state and federal funding, and we are seeing “an absolute seismic shift in how local government is going to be funded in the future.” He diplomatically addressed the federal government’s chaotic and destructive policies by simply saying, “I think everyone of us knows what’s happening.” Regarding state funding, he cautioned that if the referendum on this fall’s state ballot succeeds in lowering the state income tax rate from the current five percent to the proposed four percent, the impact on local aid will be enormous, all to the detriment of Lowell.

He then commended the 12 of 15 city unions that this year agreed to defer a two percent cost of living raise until the end of the fiscal year in return for reducing the number of layoffs of their members. (In the context of Golden’s later remarks, it seems that one of the unions that did not agree to that deferral was the one representing Lowell firefighters.)

Golden then reviewed some of the positive things that have been accomplished under his tenure, one of which is an overall culture of fiscal discipline which has resulted in a healthy reserve fund, high bond ratings, and lower borrowing costs. He then pivoted to the primary purpose of his remarks, saying “the same discipline is needed now more than ever, especially for overtime throughout the city.”

He continued:

Citywide sick leave is an area where additional controls are necessary. It’s an area that my administration has worked on and will continue to work on with our employees and our union leaders. There are departments that are doing extremely well and have been responsible. As an example, the Lowell Police Department alone reduced sick time from 15,278 hours in FY23 to 10,883 hours in 2025 and currently they’re on track at 9,637 hours for fiscal year 26. These improvements demonstrate what responsible management and cooperative effort with both of those unions has achieved.

Before I speak about the opposite side of the spectrum, this is going to be difficult to say. My comments have nothing to do with job performance. My comments have nothing to do with the excellent care that is given to residents in the time of need. I have had family members, friends today who serve on the fire department. I have family members that are taking the exam to become a firefighter.

Our firefighters have an extremely difficult job and we really truly should applaud them. However, for the last four years, I have raised concerns about sick leave and overtime with local 853’s union leadership’s team. Most recently, I truly believe I offered a fair and reasonable solution at the bargaining table that would have prevented layoffs.

We calculated the value of approximately $336,000 of savings while the actual salary costs were a little over $500,000. We started originally at eight layoffs. We got it down to six. And I have to say we worked with the union. We looked at the numbers. We tried to get it done. We tried to push it. But we needed a little bit more cooperation that at the time just isn’t there. We had something to do in a timely manner so we could get the budget to this council per the Mass General Laws.

But despite the offer that we put forward, the union leadership simply declined it. Instead, the union leadership determined the benefit of laying off the six firefighters outweighed what I had to offer. Additionally, the union leadership chose to wage a public relations campaign which is happening tonight.

However, as misguided this effort may be, it doesn’t change the math. Overtime costs have grown by an astronomical amount, roughly 300%. And the rate of escalation is simply not sustainable for the taxpayers of Lowell. In FY26, we are on pace to spend over $4 million in overtime. And this level of spending is not only unsustainable, but it’s also out of line with our peer communities. Brockton, Lynn, Lawrence, New Bedford, which are all four gateway cities with populations near and around 100,000, spend an average of about $2.75 million.

To address the root of the problem that is driving overtime, we must look at data. And that’s what we’ve been doing. And here is what the data shows. In fiscal year 2025, 112 firefighters used little to no sick time, which is commendable. . . . Sixty members used between seven and 15 tours of sick leave per year. Thirty-one members used 16 or more tours of sick leave per year.

Now, I apologize if somebody has an issue going on in their family. God knows nobody would want that to happen.

But when we’re talking about the difference between 112 members that are leading by example and doing the right thing which is commendable and the question of others we really need to look at this. This is not something that we can continue to afford.

When in 2001 we moved to the 24-hour shift. It was intended to reduce sick time and unfortunately it’s produced something the exact opposite. Sick time usage directly drives overtime. For every hour that someone calls in sick because of what this council has been trying to do, the city normally has to hire somebody back at one and a half times the rate. So that hour is costing us 2.5 times what it would normally cost [i.e., the person out sick receives their full salary and the person called in to replace them is paid at the overtime rate which is 1.5 times the regular salary.]

[Golden then made comments about time off by union leaders having increased by 60 percent which, per their contract, is filled by other firefighters who are paid overtime for filling the vacant shift.]

Shared sacrifice by the entire city cannot mean that the rest of the workplace steps up while one department maintains practices that costs are unsustainable. The fire department is critical to public safety, and its members perform life-saving work. But no department, no matter how essential, is exempt from the fiscal realities of what is going on in this country, in this state, and in this city. No department should expect others to carry the burden and not share it themselves, especially when overtime spending is up nearly 300 percent. Not when leave usage patterns cause mandatory callbacks. Not when union leave increased by more than 60 percent.

One of the charts in the “Sick Leave Usage and OT Update” report shows ten years of overtime spending by four city departments: police, fire, DPW and water & sewer. Here are the numbers for the police and fire departments by fiscal year with FY2026 showing year to date spending (FY2026 runs from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027):

FY2016

• Police - $876,193

• Fire - $1,136,194

FY2017

• Police - $954,600

• Fire - $998,820

FY2018

• Police - $951,384

• Fire - $1,078,402

FY2019

• Police - $933,726

• Fire - $1,032,390

FY2020

• Police - $807,245

• Fire - $1,110,214

FY2021

• Police - $869,609

• Fire – $1,377,098

FY2022

• Police - $1,142,720

• Fire - $2,809,567

FY2023

• Police - $1,292,720

• Fire - $3,324,750

FY2024

• Police - $1,445,480

• Fire - $2,580,886

FY2025

• Police - $1,277,128

• Fire - $3,368,314

FY2026 (YTD)

• Police - $996,876

• Fire - $3,447,240

This chart shows that spending on fire department overtime has exploded during the past decade, especially when compared to the much more gradual rate of increase of police overtime during the same period.

After Golden spoke, Mayor Erik Gitschier responded to the manager’s remarks, saying in defense of the firefighters and the current system that the large amount of overtime is a function of firefighters working 24 hour shifts rather than the 8 hour shifts worked by police officers, so when a firefighter is out sick it is more costly than when a police officer is out. The mayor then urged the city manager and the firefighters union to work out their differences before next Tuesday’s budget session but closed by saying he supported using the city’s reserve fund to cover the overtime needed instead of closing any fire stations as a way of reducing overtime spending.

Interestingly, no other councilors spoke. Perhaps that’s because a vote earlier in the evening may have been a proxy for where councilors stood on this issue. It was a vote to transfer $822,000 to the Fire Department Overtime Account. The accompanying memo stated the fire department “has currently exhausted the remaining funding” in its salaries and wages overtime account, and this money was needed to make it through the rest of the fiscal year. (The money was coming from the police department’s salaries and wages account.)

Although this vote was listed far down the agenda, it came up early in the meeting – long before Golden spoke - when Councilor Corey Robinson asked that the fire department overtime funding vote be taken out of order. That request was seconded and passed by a voice vote. However, before any substantive action could be taken, Councilor Dan Rourke said, “Mr. Mayor, I move to table this.” Councilor Vesna Nuon seconded the request.

Under the rules of procedure, a motion to table a matter requires an immediate vote and is not debatable, so Clerk Michael Geary called the roll. Voting to table the overtime transfer were councilors Rourke, Kim Scott, Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Belinda Juran and Vesna Nuon. Voting not to table the motion were Councilors Robinson, Sean McDonough, Rita Mercier, Sidney Liang, and Mayor Gitschier. Geary announced that vote as six to table it and five not to table it, so the overtime funding vote was “set on the table” and will remain unaddressed until six councilors vote to take it off the table.

In Lowell politics, as in life, its best not to believe in coincidences, so I assume this was a signal of support for the city manager in the face of off duty firefighters who were at the council meeting (or at least at City Hall) protesting the proposed layoff of six firefighters in the FY27 budget which will be debated this coming Tuesday.

For the fire department, sick time usage is a driver of overtime spending. Under previous city administrations, when firefighters are out sick, instead of summonsing off duty firefighters to fill the vacancies and paying them overtime, one of the city’s fire units would be taken out of service and the personnel assigned to that unit for that shift would be redeployed to fill the vacancies created by those who had called in sick. Shutting down a fire unit for a shift is referred to as a “brownout.”

The most recent city councils, however, have made “no brownouts” a priority, and Tom Golden, who became city manager in April 2022, has implemented that policy. While the no brownouts policy has kept all fire units in service continuously, it has also meant that as the amount of sick time used by firefighters increased, so did the city’s spending on fire department overtime.

Like Mayor Gitschier in his remarks, some councilors have been very vocal in their intolerance of brownouts. Certainly no one on the council wants fire units to be out of service, but the councilors who publicly proclaim that all fire units must be fully staffed at all times regardless of the cost put the city manager in a no win situation when it comes to negotiating with the firefighters union since the union has confidence that if it holds out against any reforms, councilors will side with them rather than with the city manager and his quest for some restraint in fire department overtime spending.

Of course, under our Plan E form of government, Golden can close all the fire units he wants and the council’s only recourse would be to fire him since councilors do not have the authority to force increases in spending from what the city manager recommends – councilors can only approve, reduce or reject those recommendations.

Conflict between the city manager and the firefighters union is not new. Back in 1993, City Manager Dick Johnson took a hardline against what he saw as firefighter intransigence at the bargaining table by ordering all beds removed from city firehouses. He also asked that the contract go to arbitration because of the deadlock. When the Lowell Sun wrote an editorial siding with Johnson, bumper stickers and signs that proclaimed, “The Sun ain’t so hot” sprouted around the community.

Somehow that conflict worked itself out. Such disputes usually do. Until they don’t. We’ll see what happens Tuesday night.

****

This week in my Wednesday “Seen and Heard” column, I wrote about last Monday’s Lowell Public Schools Civics Day at the Lowell Memorial Auditorium; reviewed True Yankees: The South Seas and the Discovery of American Identity by Dane Morrison, which is about America’s early trade with China which helped fund the creation of Lowell; noted the obituary of Philip Caputo whose 1977 book, A Rumor of War, was an instant classic in Vietnam literature; and mentioned a New York Times analysis of the recent US presidential visit to China.

****

With tomorrow being Memorial Day, I reposted an article I wrote about the history of the holiday, and Leo Racicot reviewed my new book about Lowell servicemembers who died during World War II.

An excerpt of that book, Regret To Inform You: The Human Cost of WWII in Lowell, Mass. with instructions on how to download the free ebook version or order a paper copy online, is available here.

• Accept timely submission of FY27 budget

• Appropriate the money to fund that budget

• To borrow $25 million for capital improvements

• To borrow $5 million for parking garage repairs

• To create a Lowell Water and Sewer Department by combining the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility and the Lowell Regional Water Utility and created the new position of Chief Utility Officer to lead the new department.

• To amend the sewer rate for FY27

• To amend the water rate for FY27

The public hearing on the budget is scheduled for Tuesday, May 26, 2026. In recent years, council budget sessions have been relatively brief affairs with councilors mostly deferring to the judgment of the city manager. While there are fiscal challenges with every budget, this one seems like it will be particularly painful, especially with the elimination of existing positions and employees, so councilors may question this budget more aggressively than has been the case in recent years.

Related to that, the lead story in Friday’s Lowell Sun carried the headline, “Major layoffs hit Lowell: Proposed budget cuts 50, including police and fire” by Melanie Gilbert. Among the jobs to be cut immediately, according to the article, are six firefighters, five police department employees, six from DPW, 13 from Health and Human Services, and six from MIS. Additional jobs are to be eliminated through attrition, which I take to mean when someone retires or leaves for another job, their position will not be filled.

****

The most controversial topic that arose on Tuesday was funding for nonprofits. A report from the council’s Non-Profit Organizations Subcommittee from its May 5, 2026, meeting, and a handful of council motions that flowed from that meeting brought the matter to the floor. The issue is that local nonprofits that believed they were to receive funding this year ultimately had that funding denied by the city. The loss of the expected funding has left these organizations in precarious financial condition and has angered city councilors who on Tuesday were questioning the competence and veracity of city officials.

Like so much of the chaos that engulfs the world today, the proximate cause of this crisis is the Trump regime. Let me explain:

The funding in question is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, a mechanism for the federal government to provide annual grants to state and local governments to help them deal with the challenges of urban communities. The program was established in the 1970s and is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Lowell receives its annual funding directly from HUD and has significant flexibility in how it uses those funds. For example, for two decades a major expenditure of CDBG funds by Lowell has been to pay rent for the Senior Center (with the technicalities of CDBG funding a big contributor to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Senior Center, but that’s a topic for another day).

The city has also allocated CDBG grants to nonprofits in the city. However, when President Trump took office in January 2025, he immediately issued an executive order barring any federal money from going to organizations that supported DEI programs, equity plans, environmental justice, or many of the other values that are at the core of the mission of many nonprofits.

In the past, I’ve written about the moral dilemma this poses to nonprofits: Do they stand by their values and lose federal funding that allows them to keep operating; or do they erase banned words, concepts and terms from their mission statements, websites, and grant applications to access essential funding. Because the loss of funding would pose an existential threat to their continued existence, some nonprofits chose the latter course.

These organizations prepared grant applications that were on their face in compliance with the Trump executive order and then submitted them to the city for a type of pre-review. The feedback from the city to the nonprofits seemed to have been mostly positive but also conditional. However, when the city’s Department of Planning and Development, which administers CDBG funding locally, sought further guidance from HUD (the federal agency that oversees the program), none was forthcoming. The city received no answers from the feds.

The city faces twin dilemmas: First, Lowell is essentially a guarantor of these grants. If the city disperses money to a nonprofit and then HUD, after the fact, deems the nonprofit to have been ineligible, the city will have to pay back the money to HUD. Perhaps the city could also pull back the money from the nonprofit, but by the time HUD acted, it’s likely the money would already be spent so the chances of the city getting reimbursed by the nonprofit would be slim.

The second dilemma is that it is not enough to simply “scrub” current applications, websites, and other materials of the “offending” DEI-type language. It is my understanding that HUD and other federal agencies retroactively search for “obscured” DEI language, meaning grant recipients that may have changed the language they use post Trump executive order, but which had previously used such language. Since it’s almost certain that the nonprofits now scrubbing DEI language formerly embraced it, especially in prior grant applications that would still be on file with HUD, the risk that new grants would be disallowed by HUD for past DEI language is high, further increasing the fiscal jeopardy the city would face.

With that in mind, City Manager Tom Golden’s response to councilors was that he took a more conservative approach and “erred on the side of caution” in not approving any of these CDBG grants at the city level. As much as this harms the nonprofits and the people they serve, it seems like a prudent course for the city from a fiscal stability perspective given the erratic and harmful course of the federal government these days.

****

The council received an update on the portion of the Riverwalk that runs along the Merrimack behind the Massachusetts Mills. Back in March 2024, a portion of the Main Power Building collapsed onto the Riverwalk which has been closed ever since for safety reasons. A letter from Mullins Real Estate Development which owns Mass Mills (and has, since it was first renovated in the 1980s), explained that reopening the Riverwalk is directly linked to the redevelopment of the Power Building and that construction is not expected to begin until next spring. Although disappointed in that timeline, councilors seemed to accept there is no alternative under all the circumstances.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I wrote about last weekend’s Doors Open Lowell; the obituary of Dean Tavoularis, an Oscar-winning native of Lowell; an article on the success of two print publications when so many others are failing; and commented on a review of the Venice Biennale, a big international art show.

****

In observance of Memorial Day, this coming Saturday, May 23, 2026, Bob Forrant and I will lead a free walking tour of downtown Lowell on the topic of Lowell in World War II. The walk begins at 10am from the National Park Visitor Center at 246 Market Street. The tour will take approximately 90 minutes and requires no advanced registration. Just show up.

****

Also related to Memorial Day, my latest book, Regret to Inform You: The Human Cost of WWII in Lowell, Mass. is now available. The book examines the lives of the 441 servicemembers from Lowell who died during World War II, whose names are inscribed on bronze tablets in the Lowell Memorial Auditorium.

The book is available for purchase online here and lala books on Market Street is expected to have several copies for sale.

A PDF version is also available for free on my website for those who prefer an ebook.

Related to that, the council received a report from Finance Subcommittee chair Belinda Juran on that committee’s April 28, 2026, meeting and the minutes of that meeting. The PowerPoint presentation to the subcommittee from Chief Financial Officer Conor Baldwin on the FY27 budget process was also included. The presentation was filled with information that sets the table for upcoming council budget deliberations, so I’ll review it at length in today’s newsletter.

****

The proposed budget will be presented to the city council at this week’s meeting on May 12, 2026. The council will then schedule a public hearing on the budget and should adopt the budget no later than June 30, 2026, since Fiscal Year 2027 begins the next day. Under our Plan E form of government, councilors may adopt the budget as is, make cuts to it, or reject it entirely, however, the council may not increase the budget or any item within it.

On January 22, 2026, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue certified Lowell’s “free cash” from FY25 (which ran from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025). Recall that “free cash” is the city’s surplus funds from that fiscal year. Those funds may have come from several sources: Money that was budgeted for a specific purpose but was not spent by the end of the fiscal year; surplus revenue resulting from higher than projected income from taxes; or previously unspent free cash. Before the city can use free cash, the calculations must be certified by the state Department of Revenue. After that, the city can use the money for any legal purpose. However, the best practice is to avoid using it for recurring expenses like salaries. Instead, it is usually directed towards the city’s stabilization fund (which is a type of “rainy day” account); towards capital expenditures; or towards emergency expenses that could not have been anticipated in the annual budget.

In February of this year, the council adopted the city manager’s recommendation that $7.5 million of the newly certified free cash be sent to the stabilization fund to restore the amount used to close gaps in the FY26 budget, to subsidize the city’s parking operations, and to provide more funds to the Lowell Public Schools than the city manager had initially recommended in his annual budget. Another $1.7 million was used on “traffic calming investments” (I assume that means the much-desired “speed humps”); expenses from the two special elections for the vacant state senate seat; and a few other items.

Notably, all funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) has come to an end. That money had to be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and spent by now. The presentation states, “Positions or programs previously supported by ARPA that continue will require General Fund appropriation.” When a financial windfall like ARPA became available, it would have been irrational for the city not to have taken advantage of it, but the question now is whether the use of those funds was finite and ended with the funding, or did it become so central to city operations that there is pressure to absorb those extra costs into the city’s regular budget and thereby increase the fiscal pressure on the entire operation.

For revenue, the FY27 budget estimates $320 million from state aid; $199 million from property taxes; $16 million from fees and excise; and $38 million from other sources. The state’s contribution, which is contingent on the legislature’s approval of a FY27 state budget, consists of $276 million for education; $32 million in unrestricted aid; and $9 million in reimbursements for charter school assessments.

When it comes to what the city spends money on, there are five big drivers of costs, all largely outside the city’s direct control:

• Pensions: $39.7 million in FY27, up 12.2% from FY25

• Debt Service: $23.2 million in FY27, up 35.8% from FY25

• State Assessments: $57.0 million in FY27, up 40.3% from FY25

• Health Insurance: $34.0 million in FY27, up 43.1% from FY25

• Energy: $9.4 million in FY27, up 8.0% from FY25

The bulk of “state assessments” are for charter schools. Since charter schools are public schools, their funding comes from the overall city budget in the form of a deduction from state aid. The amount of the deduction is determined by a complex calculation based on the amount per student the city is supposed to spend. The problem with that approach is that it oversimplifies the cost of educating a student. Fixed costs for facilities, infrastructure, administration, and other things must be funded regardless of how many students attend the district schools, so a greater share of the money remaining in the system must cover those fixed expenses. That leaves less money for the direct education of the students staying in the district schools.

The charter school reimbursement law seems to recognize this by providing reimbursements to the school district for a percentage of the per pupil money going to the charter school. The problem is that the reimbursement is “subject to appropriation” which means if the legislature does not allocate enough money to this line item of the state budget, communities like Lowell don’t get the reimbursement set by the statute. That has been a regular occurrence so this is a chronic problem which puts direct pressure on the budget of the Lowell Public Schools and indirect pressure on the overall city budget which is compelled to finance a greater portion of the school budget than would be the case if the legislature adequately funded charter school reimbursements.

These high-cost structural demands don’t seem to leave much room for discretionary spending in the city budget, which will make the coming budget sessions difficult for councilors. It’s easy to govern when there’s plenty of money; the challenge comes in tight times when you must disappoint people by saying no. Thanks mostly to the ARPA funding windfall, few of the current councilors have held office in tight fiscal times so it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

****

A pair of memos from the city’s Director of Elections & Census Will Rosenberry provided interesting information about the mechanics of holding an election, specifically where people vote. Now, voting places in Lowell are almost exclusively in school buildings.

For many reasons, including that we live in a country that tolerates mass shootings on an almost daily basis, it’s vital that school officials control access to their building. That is tough to do on election day when hundreds and possibly more than a thousand strangers enter the school building to vote. Consequently, for many years, Lowell Public Schools have closed on election days. In most years, that means one closure in September for the primary election, and another in November for the general election. However, this year, because of the two special elections needed to fill the state senate seat left vacant when Ed Kennedy passed away, the schools faced two additional days of being closed. Instead, the city election office worked with school officials to segregate the space within the school used for voting from the rest of the school, especially the students, and school was not cancelled.

Turnout in the special elections was quite low, so neither posed a true test of a modified system. However, studies and past practice have shown that even small changes to voting places (such as, which door to enter or where to park) tends to reduce turnout. Also, because so many children get rides to and from school, the immediate vicinity of a school becomes somewhat chaotic at arrival and dismissal times which would make it difficult for potential voters who arrive at those times.

As for making a building other than a school a polling place, that is feasible if the place is handicapped accessible, has adequate parking, and a room sufficiently large to hold all voting functions. A facility with a liquor license cannot be used as a polling place, but any other private building, including a church, is acceptable so long as the standards mentioned above are met. However, there are at least two challenges that come with using non-school buildings: the first is the city would have to pay rent, something that is not currently within the budget of the election office. The second challenge would be consistent availability. While the dates for general elections are known well in advance, the dates for primaries or preliminaries are more fluid, and the need to hold a special election can arise without much notice. Since research shows that consistently using a place for voting tends to help turnout, the city would not want to be changing polling locations with each election.

For now, it seems voting will continue to be done in city schools.

****

On richardhowe.com, please check out Dave Perry’s stellar review of last weekend’s The Town and the City Festival which includes his account of reunion appearances of several bands that dominated the Lowell music scene in the 1990s.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column I wrote about the recent dedication of Eternal Flame a new public art piece by Lowell artist Jay Hungate that was commissioned by Lowell Cemetery for its newly opened West Meadow section; reviewed a New Yorker profile of Sam Altman, the founder of the artificial intelligence company, OpenAI; commented on a New York Times article on how professional historians are observing the semiquincentennial; commented on a New York Times Op-Ed about how elderly Americans went from being among the poorest group in America to the wealthiest and most powerful; and commented on another Times Op-Ed about Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine.

****

Finally, Bob Forrant and I are teaming up to lead a free walking tour on Lowell and World War II to be held on Saturday, May 23, 2026, at 10am from the Lowell National Historical Park Visitor Center at 246 Market Street. The tour will take approximately 90 minutes and requires no advanced registration. Just show up.

Method of Electing the Mayor – A memo from City Solicitor Corey Williams responded to issues raised at an earlier meeting of the council’s rules subcommittee regarding the method of electing the city’s mayor.

From the adoption of the Plan E form of government in the 1940s up to now, the mayor has been a city councilor elected by a majority vote of the entire council at the start of each council term. The 2021 switch from electing all councilors citywide to the current hybrid system did not change that. However, in a nonbinding referendum on the November 2021 city election ballot, voters expressed a strong preference for the direct election of the mayor with 7,429 voting yes and just 2,411 voting no.

There are at least two major impediments to making this change. The first is to decide on a detailed process to be used. Who is permitted to run for mayor? In the system used in Worcester, anyone running for a citywide council seat may simultaneously run for mayor, however, a candidate for district councilor may not. In Lowell, would this citywide/district distinction be used, or could any council candidate also run for mayor? Or would a candidate have to run exclusively for mayor and forgo the right to serve on the city council if they did not prevail in the mayoral race? How is the vice chair selected? In Worcester, the second-place finisher in the mayoral balloting takes that office. What if the mayor is no longer able to serve? Does the vice chair assume the mayoralty or is there a special election? Would a preliminary mayoral election ever be needed and under what circumstances? What if the mayoral candidates who win in the preliminary and therefore appear on the mayoral ballot in the final election all lose in their council races? Being elected to the council is a precondition to winning the mayoral race under the Worcester system so I assume that would be the case here as well. Those are questions right off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more.

The second impediment is the Federal Consent Decree the city entered into to resolve the lawsuit that precipitated the change to the hybrid system. The US District Court retained jurisdiction over the decree and any changes to it – including how the mayor is elected – would have to be allowed by the court.

According to Solicitor Williams in his memo, he contacted the attorney for the plaintiffs in that lawsuit (as the council instructed him to do) and asked about their willingness to accept this proposed change. The plaintiffs’ attorney said they would be open to considering it but not until a detailed plan that addressed the kind of questions I posed in the preceding paragraph are answered. That puts the ball is in the council’s court. In other words, the council must compose and agree upon a detailed process rather than the vaguer “let the people elect the mayor” rhetoric that has ricocheted around the council chamber whenever this has come up.

There is another factor that only arose this past Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In that case, the court held that a Congressional Redistricting Map was unconstitutional because it was drawn to benefit African American voters which, per the court’s reasoning, illegally discriminated against “non-African American” voters.

The entire rationale of the now unconstitutional redistrict map was to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Ace. Specifically, the plaintiffs had argued that the prior map diluted the votes of minority members which violated Section 2. While the Supreme Court did not expressly invalidate Section 2, they trimmed away the circumstances in which it can be used to leave it entirely ineffective.

This is relevant to Lowell because the basis of the Voting Rights lawsuit against the city was that the old “all at large, winner take all” method of electing councilors violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of minority voters. With this week’s Supreme Court decision invalidating that as a cause of action, the legal basis of the plaintiffs’ case was extinguished.

Whether the city tries to take advantage of this change in the law is another question. In my view, the Supreme Court’s decision erases the history and context of the Voting Rights Act, but that is nothing new for this court which has found that it is illegal for colleges to consider prior discrimination in the admissions process and that it is illegal for the state to consider prior discrimination in elections when drawing district boundaries while at the same time holding that it is permissible to consider race when detaining an individual for immigration enforcement and that it is permissible for the president to ban people from countries that are predominantly populated by people of color from entering the United States. In other words, if a law helps members of minority groups it is unconstitutional, but if it harms members of minority groups then it is OK. I’m not sure the council wants to jump aboard that train.

Notwithstanding the role of morality in adopting a legal argument, it’s possible that the mere existence of this new Supreme Court decision may have some unilateral (and detrimental) effect on the Consent Decree, quite apart from anything the city might advocate.

****

School Spending - A memo from Conor Baldwin, the Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs, responded to a Councilor Vesna Nuon motion asking for itemized “chargeback expenditures” for the Lowell Public Schools. The memo provided numbers responsive to the motion, but its businesslike tone masks ongoing conflict between the city administration and the public schools over school funding from the city.

Here’s some background: The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 was enacted by the state legislature in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in McDuffy v. Secretary of Education. That case held that the Commonwealth’s reliance on local property tax revenue to fund the public schools violated the fundamental right to an education guaranteed by the state constitution since it create vast disparities in resources between wealthy and poor districts.

The new law created a “foundation budget” for every school district that established the minimum amount of money needed to provide an adequate education. To help poorer districts achieve their foundation budgets, the state sent massive amounts of money to school districts like Lowell to help equalize educational opportunities. However, to ensure that municipalities continue to pay their share, the law requires municipalities to spend at least a minimum amount, called Net School Spending, on their schools.

However, the form of the city’s contribution to the schools is flexible with some coming as cash that the school district can spend as it sees fit, and some coming as “in kind services” the value of which are credited towards the city’s mandatory contribution amount. For example, if a DPW worker plows snow from a walkway leading up to the school, the value of that service may be counted towards the city’s net school spending requirement.

In general, the school department would prefer most of the contribution be in the form of cash to give it flexibility in how it is spent, whereas the city would prefer most of the contribution be “in kind” since it is already paying for the employees and equipment doing the in kind services and the more in kind credit is compiled, the less cash has to be given to the schools which would preserve it to pay for city council priorities like paving more streets.

The city cannot unilaterally decide on the cash v. credit mix. Instead, it’s controlled by an agreement between the city and the school department that is ratified and monitored by the state department of education. The agreement currently in effect was executed in 2011, although the city proposed a new agreement earlier this year, however, the school department has not yet accepted it.

Although people in the school department are more tactful about it, there has always been a suspicion that the city holds more leverage in reaching the agreement and that some of the credits allocated for city services are inflated to minimize the cash that the city must contribute to the schools.

Keep all of this in mind in the coming weeks as the School Committee establishes its budget for the coming fiscal year, which will then be sent to the City Council for its approval. Even though the overall school budget for the coming year may be higher than last year’s, the rate of increase in costs exceeds the increase in the budget which will result in a net cut in resources.

****

Tree Committee - A longtime quest of the city council to create a citizen Tree Committee is moving towards realization. A memo from Sustainability Director Katherine Moses outlined all the actions that have been taken thus far, and City Manager Tom Golden reported that more than 50 residents have volunteered to serve on the committee.

An urban resident might reflexively think that tree advocacy is more of a suburban thing than an urban priority, but the fact is that trees are essential for a community like Lowell. Trees help combat “urban heat islands” that harm the health of residents and increase energy costs. Trees also help manage stormwater runoff and enhance property values. Also, Lowell has been harmed by the irresponsible cutting down of clusters of trees by private developers and paving contractors, so a committee could set ground rules for cutting down trees and then monitor enforcement of those rules.

The memo predicts that an ordinance creating the tree committee will be ready for council action by the end of this month with the tree committee established the following month.

****

This week in Seen & Heard, I reviewed the 2024 book, “Kent State: An American Tragedy” by Brian VanDemark; I commented on a New Yorker article by Louis Menand called “How to Lose a War” which identified disturbing parallels between the start of the U.S. war in Vietnam and the current conflict against Iran; and I wrote of my enjoyment with a Boston Globe Op-Ed by Lowell’s Steve O’Connor, “My dog doesn’t read your lawn signs.”

****

Back in 1987, a team from the American Folklife Center came to Lowell to conduct a months-long study that became known as the Lowell Folklife Project. The researchers documented ethnic neighborhoods, occupations, and community life in Lowell with a particular emphasis on the newly arrived Cambodian residents of the city.

Earlier this year, a representative from the American Folklife Center returned to Lowell for the March Khmer Diaspora Conference held at Middlesex Community College. As part of the conference, I joined with Sanary Phen, the executive director of the Cambodian American Literary Arts Association, to lead a walking tour through the Cambodia Town neighborhood.

Now, the American Folklife Center representative has written about the conference and the tour in the context of the earlier project. Her article is available on the Library of Congress website. It includes photos and recordings of Lowell’s Cambodian community from 40 years ago and is well worth checking out. Here’s the link.

****

Finally, Bob Forrant and I are teaming up to lead a free walking tour on Lowell and World War II to be held on Saturday, May 23, 2026, at 10am from the Lowell National Historical Park Visitor Center at 246 Market Street. The tour will take approximately 90 minutes and requires no advanced registration. Just show up.

Because this was just a “for your information” item, councilors were not required to take any action, but most of them spoke about it. Their responses brought to mind a community theater production of Goldilocks and the Three Bears with some councilors acting like the MOU was “too hot” (as in, this is the greatest thing that has ever happened in Lowell) and others deeming it “too cold” (as in, I can’t be overtly against it but I’m skeptical of the whole thing). To be fair, a couple of councilors thought it was “just right” (as in, this is a tremendous opportunity but let’s not plan the ribbon cutting just yet) which was the most reasonable approach.

I’ve read the agreement several times and still find it difficult to comprehend, although I suspect anyone who is not an investment banker would feel similar. Here is how I understand it to work:

Last year, Lowell was designated the first Frontrunner City in the United States. The Frontrunner City program is a strategic international partnership led by the Urban Economy Forum (UEF) and the United Nations to foster sustainable urban economies and advance UN Sustainable Development Goal 11, which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

One of the benefits to Lowell of this designation is to unlock significant international funding for urban development projects in the city, which is where SICC comes in. My initial guess was that SICC was not a bank or private equity company sitting on billions of dollars to invest. Instead, it seemed like a pass through for foreign investors seeking stable opportunities in which to invest (and earn interest from) their wealth.

Poking around online, there seems to be a connection between SICC and Oman, an Arab nation much in the news recently because it’s across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. Although Oman’s incredible wealth comes from oil and gas, the country’s leaders, like every other nation in the world other than the United States under the current regime, understand that the age of oil is dying and that their country must diversify into green energy technologies to strengthen it for the future. In the meantime, Oman still derives enormous wealth from petroleum sales, so the country desires stable investment opportunities that will help preserve and grow that wealth.

With the basis of the Frontrunner Program being the advancement of the UN’s sustainable development goals and, with the United States (despite the trepidation most of us feel when we awake each morning about what craziness has come out of Washington overnight) still seen as a stable and profitable venue for investment, the underlying framework of this agreement makes sense to me.

As for what’s in it for Lowell, I see two things: This deal potentially provides funding to a real estate developer who wants to construct something at an interest rate lower than what might be obtained from more traditional US lenders; and the partnership arrangement between the city and SICC, particularly the Advisory Joint Task Force committee, could accelerate the concept-to-completion timeline by providing the big-project equivalent of a pre-approved mortgage right from the start. Together, these two things would increase the odds of HCID projects happening.

I envision representatives of the Department of Planning and Development going to developers and saying, “We understand you plan to construct a building in community X, but if you come to Lowell and build it here, we have a lender offering favorable terms already lined up and ready to proceed.” Between a slightly lower interest rate than could be obtained elsewhere and the speed and ease of approval, it could be an attractive enough proposition for the developer to shift their project to Lowell.

That’s viewing this MOU in the most favorable light. Still, it’s understandable (and prudent) to have some concerns. The MOU provides some level of exclusivity to SICC so there’s a risk that projects with funding from other sources might be blocked and go elsewhere.

For example, what if an irrational war with no strategic goals was to break out in the Persian Gulf and paralyze that region’s economy? That might cause investors in that region to keep their funds closer to home rather than invest them in a distant country. With the intended money pipeline shut off by extenuating circumstances, the city might be locked into a funder – SICC – that doesn’t have any funds to lend. I believe the MOU doesn’t grant totally exclusive rights to SICC, but it’s probably enough of an obligation to make using another funder a messy undertaking.

Still, notwithstanding the thrilling announcement of the Draper project on the old National Park surface parking lot in the HCID to create a LINC Annex just a few weeks ago, in the context of a quarter of a century’s worth of effort to maximize the HCID’s potential, not much has happened, certainly nothing that meets the aspirations of the community back in 2001 when this project was conceived.

In the absence of anything better, why not give SICC a try?

****

The council also received an interesting presentation from Bridget Cooley, the director of the Pollard Memorial Library. She highlighted the library’s role as a vital community hub that provides essential services to Lowell residents. She also presented data about circulation, program attendance, and the library’s digital and physical collections. Although most library patrons in Lowell prefer tangible mediums such as printed books, the library continues to grow its digital holdings with e-books, databases and online resources. A bright spot has been the success of the relatively new bookmobile which has brought the library’s resources to neighborhoods and community events.

As a longtime user of Lowell’s library – I’m approaching the 60th anniversary of obtaining my library card – I’m thrilled to hear of the institution’s success. While I don’t use it weekly, I’m probably a monthly user. More importantly, whenever I need it, the library has always been there for me. From the comments of city councilors on Tuesday night, many of them see the value in the library and support its mission. Hopefully that will carry forward through coming budget deliberations.

****

Last week in “Seen & Heard” I wrote about my recent visit to the Massachusetts Historical Society and its “1776: Declaring Independence” exhibition now on display; I reviewed the book, Battle Green Vietnam: The 1971 March on Concord, Lexington, and Boston, by Elise Lemire (whose family roots are in Lowell), which is the story of an anti-war protest by local chapters of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War that gained national attention; I noted the obituary of Norman Bussel, a World War II POW who in later years wrote about PTSD and whose B-17 crewmate, Vasilios Mpourles of Lowell, died when their plane was shot down; and finally, an article on former NBA coach Dick Motta not being selected for the Basketball Hall of Fame led me to recall my enthusiasm for the Boston Celtics of the early 1970s.

Also, on richardhowe.com, on Marathon Monday, I reposted my April 22, 2013, article about the days-earlier Boston Marathon Bombing; and on Friday, I posted a new poem by the stellar poet and Lowell-native Michael Casey about the Olympia Restaurant.

****

One week to go until this spring’s Lowell Cemetery tours. They are on Saturday, May 2, and Sunday, May 3, both starting at 10am from the Knapp Avenue entrance of the cemetery. It’s free and there is no need to sign up in advance. Just show up. It’s the same tour both days.

****

A routine public hearing on a request by Boston Gas to replace an existing gas main on Fletcher Street generated an interesting discussion. Several members of the public spoke, recommending that instead of replacing an entire stretch of pipe, that the gas company just fix the leak. The reasoning is that replacing the entire pipe is more expensive than plugging the leak but because the gas company just passes the cost onto its customers, it doesn’t have an incentive to do the less expensive repairs.

Mayor Gitschier countered that these gas pipes are likely 50 years old and if a pipe starts leaking in one place, it’s likely to have a second and subsequent leak nearby, so replacing the entire stretch of pipe can be cheaper in the long run. Also, the gas company tries to replace pipes just before the city repaves a street. If the “just plug the leak whenever it happens” approach is used, a newly paved street could be dug up repeatedly which devalues that benefit of the repaving project.

As I understand it, most of the gas pipes buried beneath Lowell’s streets are made of cast iron which is brittle and prone to cracking from ground movement caused by freeze-thaw cycles and heavy surface traffic. Utilities now use plastic pipe which is more durable in that it does not rust, corrode or react to acidic soil, while also being flexible which allows it to move with the ground as it freezes and thaws.

I also believe this pipe replacement effort is partially in response to the 2018 gas explosions in Lawrence and Andover. In that incident, a series of fires and explosions ripped through those communities killing one, injuring two dozen, and damaging or destroying over 100 structures. The catastrophe occurred when a gas crew that was replacing old cast iron pipes with new plastic ones botched the job which caused gas to flow through the old iron pipes at a pressure level far higher than the system could tolerate. This in turn caused gas regulators on appliances in countless homes and buildings to fail which allowed gas to flow into those places. Wherever it found an ignition source, it exploded, hence all the destruction.

In response, the state of Massachusetts, among other things, significantly accelerated the time in which utility companies must replace older gas pipes since the newer pipes and their ancillary fittings reduce the risk of a similar occurrence.

However, the state has also imposed rules that will help move away from our reliance on natural gas which is used primarily for home heating. Although gas hookups in new construction have not yet been banned, state policy provides strong incentives for shifting from gas heat and cooking to an “all electric” home that relies on heat pumps and induction stovetops.

Which is all to say that public policy, particularly at the local level, is quite complicated with many moving parts. Nothing major came out of this public hearing, but it provided insight into the balance that must be struck between safety and cost.

****

The second policy issue arose with twin votes by the council to accept deeds for the real estate parcels located at 251 Church Street and at 60 Clairmont Street. Both were “deeds in lieu of foreclosure” only the foreclosure contemplated would have been for unpaid taxes.

In general, a deed in lieu of foreclosure is a mechanism whereby a homeowner who is facing the foreclosure of their mortgage “hands over the keys” to the house in exchange for the lender releasing them from their mortgage debt and halting further legal action. This is done by the homeowner executing a deed which conveys ownership of the property to the lender who then becomes the outright owner of the property.

In the two deeds on the Tuesday agenda, the city stepped into the shoes of the mortgage lender, except instead of the delinquent debt being an unpaid mortgage, it was unpaid real estate taxes. Once the deed is signed by the homeowner, the city will record it at the registry of deeds, and the city will own the property.

Historically under Massachusetts law, the city would “take” property for the nonpayment of taxes by recording a Notice of Taking at the registry of deeds. However, that did not mean the city immediately owned the property. Instead, it kicked off a long, complicated legal process which would end up with the city owning the property provided the property owner did not bring their tax payments (along with fines and interest) up to date.

Instead of getting cash for the unpaid taxes, the city would get the property itself. This was a draconian remedy since if the tax liability was just $500 but the property was worth $500,000, the city would end up owning a property worth $500,000 and the property owner would get nothing despite having $495,500 in equity in the property.

But a city needs current revenue, not a big property portfolio, so instead of pursuing this long legal process to its end, the city instead began auctioning off its right to conduct tax foreclosures to private companies which would pay the city money upfront and then pursue the foreclosure in their own names, eventually selling the property to a third party and reaping a substantial profit.

This all came to a screeching halt in 2023 when the U.S. Supreme Court held in a Minnesota case that the kind of absolute foreclosure used in Massachusetts for tax takings was an unconstitutional taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Recognizing that the Massachusetts law would also be deemed unconstitutional if challenged, municipalities across the Commonwealth, including Lowell, paused any new tax lien foreclosures and delayed scheduling tax lien auctions. A Massachusetts trial court subsequently confirmed this assumption by ruling the state’s tax lien law unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court precedent.

While the Massachusetts state legislature is reportedly working on a legislative fix, the suspension of tax lien foreclosures has had practical consequences for local governments. Cities have temporarily lost one of their primary legal tools to address abandoned, dilapidated, and tax-delinquent properties, leaving local officials frustrated as problem properties remain untouched.

Consequently, it was great to see that the city is adopting new tactics in its efforts to collect back taxes. Unfortunately, the deed in lieu of foreclosure route requires (1) the homeowner to assent to it; and (2) the property to be free of any other encumbrances like an outstanding mortgage or creditor liens. Still, in the right situation – the two properties acted on Tuesday night were both relatively small undeveloped parcels – it is a useful tool for the city to use.

****

The council also endorsed a motion by Mayor Erik Gitschier that that city rename the stretch of road in front of University Crossing from its current name of Pawtucket Street to the new name of Meehan Way in honor of UMass President Marty Meehan.

On Tuesday, many councilors spoke of all the good that Meehan did for UMass Lowell and for the city while he was chancellor of the school from 2007 until 2015 when he became president of the entire UMass system, and for his service in the US House of Representatives from 1993 until 2007. The catalyst for the street renaming was the recent announcement that Meehan was making a $1.5 million charitable gift to UMass Lowell to support paid internships for current students. In gratitude for the donation, UMass Lowell will rename its University Crossing building the Martin T. Meehan Student Center with a dedication ceremony on Saturday, May 2, 2026.

****

One hundred sixty-five years ago today, two young men from Lowell were shot and killed in Baltimore, making them two of the first of 725,000 people to die in the American Civil War. Luther Ladd and Addison Whitney, two mill workers, were also members of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteer Militia Regiment, that era’s National Guard. When, on April 12, 1861, the South Carolina militia attacked the US Army’s Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteer troops to come to Washington DC to help suppress the rebellion.

The Sixth Massachusetts was among the first to mobilize and move out. As it passed through Baltimore on its way to Washington on the morning of April 19, 1861, the Massachusetts soldiers were attacked by a mob of Confederate sympathizers. Ladd, Whitney and two other soldiers were killed and a dozen were wounded.

Despite the bloodshed – the soldiers returned fire and killed more than a dozen rioters – the Sixth made it to Washington, the first northern military unit to do so, and helped protect the capital from seizure by nearby rebel forces.

The remains of Ladd and Whitney were returned to Lowell where they were memorialized as heroes and called “the first martyrs of the rebellion.” On June 17, 1865 – Bunker Hill Day – the city dedicated an obelisk monument to their memory. Known as the Ladd and Whitney monument, it stands just to the front of Lowell City Hall on Merrimack Street. The grassy triangle the monument sits atop, historically called Monument Square, is also a cemetery since Ladd and Whitney are both buried there.

****

If you are interested in learning more about Lowell’s history, come to one of my Lowell Cemetery tours which will be held on Saturday, May 2, and Sunday, May 3, at 10am from the Knapp Avenue entrance of Lowell Cemetery. (Same tour both days).

****

This week in Seen & Heard, I wrote a review of the book The Wounded Generation: Coming Home After World War II; commented on an article by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic on his experience with legal sports gambling in the US; and commented on another article in New York magazine about the tragic loss in a flash blood of 37 girls attending a summer camp in Texas last summer and the controversial efforts of the camp to reopen this year.