| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 07:00:24 AM
|
It think Nicholas Montesano, Phil Morris, as well as Schlosberg who actually came in fourth.
All the results are available here; You must be logged in to see this link. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 09:04:33 AM
|
| Ward 5 is cut off. |
|
|
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 10:51:41 AM
|
| If you visit cityofeverett.com, click on City Clerk, then Elections. You should be able to find it. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 11:50:10 AM
|
| For me, page 11 down is cut off. I tried the website, both browsers and saving as PDF. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 9:48:50 PM
|
Can anyone explain, in more detail, what this rumor about Councilor Billy Cardello is supposed to be? Is he supposed to be stepping down before the election? After? When did this first come to light? Before or after the filing date for nomination papers for the upcoming election? It's hard for me to know what to think about this or how it should be handled without some more details.
Mr. Schlosberg did come in fourth place in the Ward 5 Council race in 2009 and did get a vote on more than 20% of the ballots cast in Ward 5 in that election. That would be the criteria for filling a vacant seat if the new charter were in place, up to the upcoming election at least; after that, there's really nothing that would specify how the seat should be filled. (Tails, there is someplace else where you can find the election results; I think you'll know where. When I verified it there, the results were complete.)
As far as the question of residency in the ward, there are a couple of things. The current charter doesn't require it; the new charter will though. As far as redistricting goes, I'm not sure when or if it has already taken place. As a part of the redistricting, I have heard that a portion of Bradford Street has been/will be restricted but the portion where Mr. Schlosberg lives has not been/will not be.
It may just be me but I'm not sure how Mr. Schlosberg is immediately identified as a hack for the current administration. He was a McGonagle supporter in 2007; it's likely he was a true "McGonagucci" though. His was one of the four votes on the Charter Commission against the four year term for Mayor.
If the concern is more that he would sell his vote for the administration's support in gaining the seat, I certainly could see where that is coming from, especially given the city's current political climate. If charter passes, I'd be hard pressed to see how Common Council members would support him for a seat without a "push" from the administration since he'd be considered as one of the driving forces that would be putting most of them out of a job in two years.
Personally, like him or not, I've always found Mr. Schlosberg to be an independent voice, at least as an elected official. Then again, he really wouldn't truly be elected if he gained office in this fashion, would he? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2011 : 10:00:26 AM
|
I did see the election results, thanks. The City's website was a sloppy job and is still cut off, so that was no help. I guess nobody checks their work. I read somewhere that Schlosberg came in last and wanted to confirm that. He came in 4th.
Billy is moving and this has been known since July. I don't understand why he even put his name on the ballot if he knew he was moving. I heard from another councilor that he's going to be nominating Schlosberg so they can avoid the polls. That is wrong. That's actually worse then going by the criteria. No one on the common council goes by the criteria because if they did.....Dave Rodrigues would not be there right now, as I still say he should not be. I don't care how many people they know at State Ethics, and saying State Ethics will never touch them. That's all the more reason to get rid of the entire dishonest bunch.
How about the fact that Schlosberg has been instrumental in the attempted demise of the common council and he wants to serve on a council that he's trying to do away with? How productive could he possibly be? How can ANYONE say he's the best candidate? Makes no sense unless there's back-room deals going on. Between that.... Schlosberg's redistricting issue ....and..... Schlosberg's promise that he would not vote on the 4 year term for mayor, and then he went ahead and did it! It's all too compromised. As for McGonagle supporters, I can think of others that were McGonagle supports too, and were with him when the election results were read 4 years ago. That councilor jumped ship real quick when her husband got a job. Not to mention the numerous others that look for handouts. I find Schlosberg to "claim" he has an Independent voice but is easily swayed. Putting him in this way is the wrong thing to do. It's not fair to other viable candidates that could have ran, and won fair and square at the ballot. It's not fair to all the candidates that are out there campaigning, and spending money...... but Schlosberg is going to walk right in?? That's being pushed by the administration. It's another vote to go Carlo's way. It's so dishonest and I would not doubt that it's corruption. Shame on Billy for participating. It's just like not letting the PEOPLE vote for the 4 year term for mayor. That was on the ballot in 2002 and lost by 1000 votes. There are 40,000.00 people that live in Everett. 9 people are making that decision that had no right to do. That should have been a separate ballot question and there's no one else to thank except for Schlosberg. Now, he gets a free ride for it? |
|
|
|
OuttaHere
Member
58 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2011 : 9:09:20 PM
|
| Looks like you got it all figured out' Thanks! Where is Billy moving to AND how did he unload his place!.........I want to be next! |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2011 : 10:39:07 PM
|
Tails,
The source of that other copy of the document was the city web site so I don't know what could have happened to the original in the intervening time.
Thanks for the information about Councilor Cardello. Moving is not usually a decision that is made over night. If he was considering it, I agree that he never should pulled papers. If it came up after he had already returned his papers, then he should have withdrawn his name from consideration and made it public so that someone else could have considered running. I agree that no one should ever be given a free ride for a seat unless not enough people filed the papers needed to run for the available number of seats.
If this comes to pass, the timing of it will be interesting. If it comes to light before the election, I don't believe that the appointment could be made for any longer than through the end of the year. I think it would have to be readdressed after the first of the year by the newly elected Common Council. Even if you argue that the parts of the new charter (if passed) can take effect after the election, the language in the filing of vacancies section of the new charter only looks back to the most recent election. Therefore, this would be a situation that is not covered even in the new charter. So, I don't believe that anyone would be automatically entitled to the vacant seat; it would up to the new Council to decide how to fill the seat as they see best.
I never said that Mr. Schlosberg would be the best person to fill the seat, just that I didn't think that anyone should label him a "hack" for the current administration, at least at the present time. I too don't understand why anyone would want a seat on a body that they would like to do away with. It didn't make sense to me two years ago; it makes even less sense to me now. I also think that it sends the wrong message to the people that are considering voting for the new charter too.
I also don't think that it would be wise of the current administration to expend any of its political capital to convince councilors that they should vote for someone to fill a vacant seat who helped to spearhead the movement that will likely put a majority of them out of a job in two years. Is one more vote from a body that is already likely to be stacked in their favor really going to make a difference? Maybe it does to them though.
I think that you have to remember that the definition of a true "McGonagucci" was that someone that was only supporting Joe in that election in the hopes that they could get their old job back.
Are you saying that you believe that there is/will be bias in the redistricting?
Prior to the Charter Commission being formed, I think that one of the most common comments made on the boards was that we wanted them to look at the entire charter. So even though I don't like the four year term for Mayor, I had no problem with the issue being discussed. I may be wrong but I don't recall Mr. Schlosberg saying that he wouldn't take up the issue of the mayoral term. Even if he did, I don't think that in his role as chairman put him into a position to decide which issues would be discussed and which issues didn't need any; that should have been, and I believe was, the will of the entire board. All that said, I still believe that it would have been possible to have a charter proposal on the ballot with a separate question on the length of the term of the mayor. At least that's the way that I read Massachusetts General Law. It may have been a little complicated, especially if the charter failed and the four year-term passed, but I think it was an option that would have been well worth pursuing further. The only real pushback that we hear about the new charter is just that one issue. It'll be a shame if the new charter goes down to defeat because of it, IMHO. |
Edited by - tetris on 09/22/2011 11:42:40 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2011 : 08:56:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tetris
Tails,
The source of that other copy of the document was the city web site so I don't know what could have happened to the original in the intervening time.
Thanks for the information about Councilor Cardello. Moving is not usually a decision that is made over night. If he was considering it, I agree that he never should pulled papers. If it came up after he had already returned his papers, then he should have withdrawn his name from consideration and made it public so that someone else could have considered running. I agree that no one should ever be given a free ride for a seat unless not enough people filed the papers needed to run for the available number of seats.
If this comes to pass, the timing of it will be interesting. If it comes to light before the election, I don't believe that the appointment could be made for any longer than through the end of the year. I think it would have to be readdressed after the first of the year by the newly elected Common Council. Even if you argue that the parts of the new charter (if passed) can take effect after the election, the language in the filing of vacancies section of the new charter only looks back to the most recent election. Therefore, this would be a situation that is not covered even in the new charter. So, I don't believe that anyone would be automatically entitled to the vacant seat; it would up to the new Council to decide how to fill the seat as they see best.
I never said that Mr. Schlosberg would be the best person to fill the seat, just that I didn't think that anyone should label him a "hack" for the current administration, at least at the present time. I too don't understand why anyone would want a seat on a body that they would like to do away with. It didn't make sense to me two years ago; it makes even less sense to me now. I also think that it sends the wrong message to the people that are considering voting for the new charter too.
I also don't think that it would be wise of the current administration to expend any of its political capital to convince councilors that they should vote for someone to fill a vacant seat who helped to spearhead the movement that will likely put a majority of them out of a job in two years. Is one more vote from a body that is already likely to be stacked in their favor really going to make a difference? Maybe it does to them though.
I think that you have to remember that the definition of a true "McGonagucci" was that someone that was only supporting Joe in that election in the hopes that they could get their old job back.
Are you saying that you believe that there is/will be bias in the redistricting?
Prior to the Charter Commission being formed, I think that one of the most common comments made on the boards was that we wanted them to look at the entire charter. So even though I don't like the four year term for Mayor, I had no problem with the issue being discussed. I may be wrong but I don't recall Mr. Schlosberg saying that he wouldn't take up the issue of the mayoral term. Even if he did, I don't think that in his role as chairman put him into a position to decide which issues would be discussed and which issues didn't need any; that should have been, and I believe was, the will of the entire board. All that said, I still believe that it would have been possible to have a charter proposal on the ballot with a separate question on the length of the term of the mayor. At least that's the way that I read Massachusetts General Law. It may have been a little complicated, especially if the charter failed and the four year-term passed, but I think it was an option that would have been well worth pursuing further. The only real pushback that we hear about the new charter is just that one issue. It'll be a shame if the new charter goes down to defeat because of it, IMHO.
Let's watch the last meeting in December and see what happens. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 09:14:21 AM
|
I really believe the four year term for mayor could end up causing the demise of Charter reform. It has nothing do to with Mayor DeMaria. Many voters don't want any mayor in office that long without the chance to make a change after two years if things are going down hill.
The Recall provision will probably never get used due to the reason Tetris stated in an earlier post. Heaven help the person who tries it and it fails.
I will not be voting for the new Charter and my main reason is the four year term for mayor. That one provision is taking away the voters voice, once again. |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 10:33:19 AM
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't stuck in there partly to kill charter reform and the elimination of the CC. The commission really let the people of Everett down. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2011 : 1:56:59 PM
|
Tails,
If it happens, I believe that it would more likely happen at the first regular meeting of the Common Council in January. Even though it's not in either charter (old or new), I believe that it would not be right for an outgoing council to decide who is going to serve on the next council. And we are certain that the composition of the next Common Council will be different since we know that at least Peter Napolitano and Carlie Smith won't be members of that body.
Cozulady,
I really don't think that the four term was put in the new charter in their to kill charter reform. I believe it was championed by four members of the Charter Commission with close ties to the Mayor (Bono, Hickey, Lattanzi, Marcus); the fifth member that voted for it was Sansone. From what I know, he was on the fence about it and made his decision by listening to the people that spoke to him about it. Again, from what I know, Sansone seems to be a genuine guy.
If charter fails, this will be the issue that it fails on. And maybe, unfortunately for him, they'll be someone to blame it for it. And we all know that he hates to be blamed for anything. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 8:47:23 PM
|
| I much prefer a four year term for the Mayor. You run a campaign, you win and 1 year into your administration you're running for re-election. Not enough time to get anything worthwhile done in my estimation. Whoever is Mayor, if theyre THAT bad, the recall won't fail. So whats to fear? Charter reform needs to pass. The elimination of this ridiculous bi-cameral government is a MUST. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 10/12/2011 8:49:37 PM |
|
|
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2011 : 9:04:22 PM
|
| I agree with Middle-Man, with two year terms a Mayor spends too much time campaigning, and not enough time governing. I think that with a four year term, more decisions will be made without political reasons. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2011 : 09:36:55 AM
|
| We, the voters, soundly defeated this very issue on the ballot. I feel this is a backdoor way of going around the voters. In my opinion, the four year term, should have been a stand alone issue and placed back on the ballot. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
More Rumors
