| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2010 : 4:18:51 PM
|
| Sounds like it was an interesting meeting....thanks for the update. |
 |
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2010 : 5:31:37 PM
|
I just wanted to make a quick correction from my previous post with names. It is Mr. Flood and Mr. Lozzi (no e's at the end of their names).
I also just wanted to say I agree with Mr. Lozzi about this 4 year term for the mayor. I've talked to a few people who voted to a have a 4 year term for the mayor and they have all said that the way this commission is going about it is just wrong. I know a lot of people will say to those people: just shut up you got what you wanted. But I think it is still wrong of them to reverse a decision made by the electorate.
|
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 6:06:58 PM
|
| Anyone see the Everett Independent today???? I heard there was an article in there about the Charter Commission? |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 8:37:16 PM
|
EVERETT INDEPENDENT
FROM OUR READERS
WEDNESDAY June 16, 2010
Voters....What Do They Know?
To the Editor:
The Charter Commission, at their June 9 meeting, has decided to make the Mayoral term four years. Back in 2002 the voters of this city voted on a question to extend the Mayoral term from two years to four years and it was voted down. At the Commission’s meeting they decided to null and void that vote that was taken back in 2002 by the voters. The term of the Mayor should not be changed because the voters have already decided what they wanted.
What happened at the June 9 meeting was a blow to the democratic process that took place back in 2002. When I voted for Charter Review I had no idea these were the kind of changes that were going to be altered. Fundamental changes like these should be decided by the voters, via ballot questions, and not the Commission. I thought the Commission was just going to update the City Charter, i.e. by reviewing the appropriate city ordinances and procedural and administrative matters. Not on already voted ballot questions that have been decided by the electorate. I will regret voting for this Commission for a long time.
If back in 2002 the four year term won, and the Commission cut it down to two years, I would still be writing a letter because the will of the people would still have been completely ignored, just like it’s being ignored now. Even those that voted for a four year term back in 2002 have to agree that this is just a legal way of circumventing the will of the voters. What if the four year term did end up being passed and the Commission cut it back down to two years? How would you feel? I think we all know the answer; and for those that voted against this, your vote is being cast aside and made way for personal bias and opinion by the Charter Commission. Unless the Commission reverses its decision on the four year term for the Mayor, I encourage and implore everyone to vote NO on this new City Charter. What they have done is just plain wrong.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Lozzi
|
Edited by - Heisenberg on 06/16/2010 8:59:57 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 9:34:38 PM
|
| I completely agree with this letter and if this change stands, I will be voting against the new City Charter and will urge everyone I know not to vote for it. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 6:21:03 PM
|
Just got home and saw the Advocate...it seems Mr. Lozzi's editorial made it into that newspaper as well; and it came along with an Editor's note that says the paper agrees with him.
There are also two other headlines about the Commission: Controversial Charter Recommendation Looming? and Commission is Out of Bounds. I'll write the two stories later...I'm going to have dinner!!!
|
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 9:27:46 PM
|
EVERETT ADVOCATE
Friday July 18, 2010
Vol. 18 No. 24
(Mr. Lozzi's editorial hasn't changed so you can see my previous post to see what he wrote. The only thing that was different for the Advocate was that the Editor responded back to him). So, it is the Editors response to Mr. Lozzi's letter, followed by two other articles that were in the paper about the Commission.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Advocate agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Lozzi's stand on the Charter Commission ignoring the will of the voters. He's right, when he states the issue of a four year Mayoral term, instead of the present two years, should be a ballot question NOT a Charter Commission decision. In our opinion, it would be wise for the Commission to rethink the issue-and then leave it to the voters to decide, if that's their decision.
Controversial Charter recommendation looming?
Word has it that the Charter Review Commission is favoring a proposal to recommend that local voters length the mayoral term of office from two years to four. That is already creating controversy in some quarters since the electorate turned thumbs down on a four year mayoral term when it was offered on the ballot eight years ago.
Commission is out of bounds
Think about this, folks: the Charter Commission wants a four year term for a mayor. If a mayor gets a four year term, it only makes sense, that whoever is elected, can control the local election that's held halfway through the term. The then four year term mayor has nothing to lose politically by running a slate of candidates. Moreover, he or she gets a free ride for two more years. That's what’s happening in other cities that bit the apple. In our opinion, the Charter Commission is out-of-bonds. The decision should be left to the electorate.
|
Edited by - Heisenberg on 06/17/2010 9:29:45 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2010 : 07:11:29 AM
|
| This is one of those rare times that I agree with the Advocate. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2010 : 07:53:00 AM
|
| Does anyone know who this Michael Lozzi is? The name looks familiar. Does anyone have any information on him???? For someone who just appeared out of nowhere, he's causing quite a stir. |
Edited by - Heisenberg on 06/18/2010 08:19:11 AM |
|
|
|
Mike Lozzi
Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2010 : 9:25:56 PM
|
Hello to the citizens of Everett. My name is Michael Lozzi, the person who wrote the editorial about the Charter Commission. I've received more than a few comments from people saying I am writing on this blog. With the exception of this post, I AM NOT WRITING ON THIS BLOG.
That being said, I want to clear a few things up:
1) I am NOT smearing anyone on the Charter Commission in anyway, shape, or form, attacking their characters, or attacking them personally. I disagree with a decision that they made and I wrote something in the papers…that’s it. So, anyone who says otherwise is flat out lying.
2) I wrote the editorial and I have no regrets about it. All I wanted to do was to inform the public, and open up some debate on the issue of a 4 year term for the Mayor.
3) If you have any questions/comments about what I wrote (or what I write in the future) please feel free to call me at 617-389-2945 or if you prefer email me at mtl1212@yahoo.com
4) I appreciate some of the praise from the people who are on this site. However, again just to reiterate, anyone that says they’re me, or insinuates that they’re me, is misleading you. If I have a problem or issue with you, I will tell you myself.
I hope that has cleared things up, I hope the rumors can now stop, and I wish everyone a good night!
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2010 : 10:39:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lozzi
Hello to the citizens of Everett. My name is Michael Lozzi, the person who wrote the editorial about the Charter Commission. I've received more than a few comments from people saying I am writing on this blog. With the exception of this post, I AM NOT WRITING ON THIS BLOG.
That being said, I want to clear a few things up:
1) I am NOT smearing anyone on the Charter Commission in anyway, shape, or form, attacking their characters, or attacking them personally. I disagree with a decision that they made and I wrote something in the papers…that’s it. So, anyone who says otherwise is flat out lying.
2) I wrote the editorial and I have no regrets about it. All I wanted to do was to inform the public, and open up some debate on the issue of a 4 year term for the Mayor.
3) If you have any questions/comments about what I wrote (or what I write in the future) please feel free to call me at 617-389-2945 or if you prefer email me at mtl1212@yahoo.com
4) I appreciate some of the praise from the people who are on this site. However, again just to reiterate, anyone that says they’re me, or insinuates that they’re me, is misleading you. If I have a problem or issue with you, I will tell you myself.
I hope that has cleared things up, I hope the rumors can now stop, and I wish everyone a good night!
I’m sorry but I’m confused. Why would ANYONE accuse you of writing on blogs just because you wrote an editorial? I think City Hall needs to concentrate more on their jobs rather than who writes on blogs!
There are plenty of people in the mayors pocket that would do his dirty work and would pull a stunt like this to scare you away because they want their master to get his four year term and want to shut you up. I can only hope you would not back down.
From what you are saying it sounds like bullying and boarder line threats. Don’t be swayed because of bullying.
If you feel that adamantly against it then keep doing what you are doing and you can feel good about yourself.
I would ask you to keep up the good work. I’m proud of people like you that stand up for what’s right and don’t back down because of a few cowards. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2010 : 2:43:07 PM
|
Just a quick update on the Charter Commission's meeting on Wednesday. I found out that they wrapped up the legislative and executive branches and moved on to the school committee. The only change as of right now is that the ward members will be elected by ward only (not at large) and the at large members will still be elected at large. It was decided to take the summer off, and they’ll be back in Sept. Also, they may be having a public hearing in Sept. or Oct.
I also wanted to comment/agree with Tails’ last post. I too read the editorial and liked/agreed with it and posted it on the site. I apologize if that offended Mr. Lozzi. Like Tails said, it “sounds like bullying and boarder line threats.” Keep doing what your doing and don’t be swayed by anyone or any group of people.
|
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2010 : 07:15:30 AM
|
| Any information/updates on Charter Review? The few people I got information from second hand seem to not care anymore so...I have nothing to post/tell you people! If anyone else has info please post it. |
|
|
|
scamore
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2010 : 10:20:25 AM
|
| Does anyone know what happen last night, couldn't make the meeting but I heard it was a long one. wish they would put in on t.v everyother screwy meeting is on except this one. |
|
|
|
sweetdeal2007
Member
29 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2010 : 1:13:33 PM
|
Elected Charter Commission seeks $10K for private guidance
By Katie Farrell Lovett
NEWBURYPORT — Councilors continue to challenge a request from the nine-member group elected to review and make recommendations to update the city's government structure on its wish to spend $10,000 for a private consultant to guide the process, but they stopped short of voting the measure down completely.
Members of the Charter Commission attended a council Budget and Finance subcommittee meeting prior to the full council session last night to make a new plea for the funding, which they say is necessary to update a document that has not been scrutinized in generations.
"We need some assistance in pulling this all together," Commission Chairman Steve Cole said. "We want to get this right for the citizens who did vote for us."
Councilors argued that the commission was elected by the people to review the charter. They shouldn't be "intimidated" by the technical aspects of the process, at-large Councilor Kathleen O'Connor Ives said.
At-large Councilor Steve Hutcheson noted that neither the council nor residents have had a presentation on the commission's findings or been given an update on the process.
"We haven't really seen anything here," Ward 5 Councilor Brian Derrivan agreed.
The Charter Commission was elected by voters in November to review the city's charter, or governing document. The election attracted 20 candidates.
The commission's recommendations will ultimately go before voters at the polls and could include anything from changing the length of a mayoral term to choosing an entirely new form of government.
The last time the city reviewed its charter was more than 90 years ago, and there is no precedent in the city to guide how to proceed, Cole said.
Since forming in November, commissioners have met frequently, forming numerous subcommittees, visiting other cities and towns, interviewing elected officials and conducting a citywide survey, they said.
After getting elected, the commission reviewed letters from three different parties interested in consulting for the project, they said. Two of the parties didn't match up with their needs. The University of Massachusetts/Boston's Collins Center for Public Management offered expertise, professional guidance and resources, they said.
Steve McGoldrick, of the UMass Collins Center, told the Budget and Finance Committee that the charter process is complicated. Older charters are "inconsistent" with state law and must include certain language and wording, he said.
As a consultant, he would join the commission to oversee the process and help commissioners meet deadlines and "stay on target."
"I am not the 10th member of that commission. I do not have a vote," he said.
Instead, he would offer examples of language or answer questions on state statutes.
"I see my role more as a facilitator," McGoldrick said.
Members of the commission attended a council Budget and Finance subcommittee meeting prior to the full council session last night to make a plea for the funding. They told the three-person subcommittee they needed the guidance and feedback a consultant would provide.
Commissioner Sheila Mullins said the board members aren't experts on Massachusetts General Law, with which a charter must comply.
"I personally, as a commissioner, don't have the time to memorize Mass. General Law and become an expert on it," she said.
The UMass Collins Center would not dictate to the commission what to write, but will make sure they transcribe it appropriately, Commissioner Hugh Kelleher said. The commission is asking for a "minimal amount" of money in the city budget, he added.
Councilors weren't persuaded to agree to the transfer, voting instead to table the measure and refer it back to Budget and Finance.
At-large Councilor Barry Connell agreed, saying the group of commissioners is "very competent."
Hiring outside aid now is "putting the cart before the horse," Connell said, noting it would be premature to do so before the policy discussion is fully finished by the commission.
Any document with recommended changes that is approved by voters would then be vetted by the state attorney general's office, which would ensure it met MGL requirements, at-large Councilor Tom Jones said.
Following the vote, Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron, chairman of the Budget and Finance committee, said he will see how the Charter Commission wants to proceed.
Many of the councilors' questions were answered in the subcommittee meeting, Cameron said, adding that he will consider holding a meeting for the full council with the Charter Commission members.
I put this out here from the north of Boston newspaper. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Charter Review
