PDM should not make an endorsement in the Governor's race at this time. The number of open seats in the legislature this fall presents a tremendous opportunity for groups such as PDM to put their energy where it may make a true difference in promoting progressive values in our state government. Our priority should be legislative races.

PDM does not have to endorse anyone for governor. At this time we should not endorse the Patrick administration, and in the interest committing our resources effectively, I do not support endorsing any other Democratic candidate.

The Patrick administration's commitment to progressive values is, at this time, questionable. Actually, their belief that it is acceptable to place elementary school children in an institution that they know is not ready to open, simply to score political points, calls into question more than their commitment to progressive values. A copy of the words of one of Governor Patrick's cabinet officers is below. The issue here for PDM is not charter schools, or education policy specifically. Would this administration have come to a similar conclusion if what was on the table were a health clinic? The question we should be asking is, does this type of thinking reflect the kind of government we want to support with our name?

I've asked the Patrick campaign, which is now being managed by Secretary Reville's former Chief of Staff, how exactly do political decisions of the kind so clearly spelled out by Secretary Reville get made, but so far have not received an answer.

In the interest of full disclosure, I live in Gloucester, which is being asked to accommodate the school that the Secretary of Education described in glowing terms as "a tough but necessary pill to swallow." 

-- Peter Dolan, Founding Member, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

==================================================================

This email was sent from Secretary of Education Paul Reville to the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester after the Charter School Office (which has recommended approval of many school charters over the years, and which is considered by some to do the best job in the country evaluating proposed charter schools) determined that all three of the 2009 proposed charter school finalist applications should be rejected. Commissioner Chester then brought a recommendation to approve the proposed school in Gloucester to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, neglecting to mention the negative evaluation from the CSO. The Board then voted to grant the charter, but community opposition continues to explore avenues to undo this mistake. You can read more starting here: http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/17930/its-been-a-mess-mr-secretary

Secretary Reville's February 6, 2009 email:

Mitchell,
I appreciated our talk today and your openness and flexibility. This situation presents one of those painful dilemmas. In addition to being a no-win situation, it forces us into a political cul de sac where we could be permanently trapped. Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we'll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I'd rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can't find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I'm not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester. My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester. Can you see your way clear to supporting it? Would you want to do the financial trigger even in light of likely stimulus aid? Thanks for not seeing this as an independence issue. It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It's a tough but I think necessary pill to swallow."
Paul