| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2012 : 10:13:54 PM
|
| Since I was on such a bummer rant in my last post, I forgot to mention the one lone bright spot from tonight's meeting. Rosemary Miller did the absoloute right thing by suggesting to table the appointment for two weeks until any doubts about it can be removed, once and for all. She also did the right thing for herself by leaving the floor during the vote so she wasn't a party to the action. Again, I don't think that anything will come out of it but I also believe that it is better to be safe than sorry. |
Edited by - tetris on 03/06/2012 12:12:56 AM |
 |
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2012 : 06:08:32 AM
|
I agree with you about Miller but I'm confused. (not the first time that's happened!  )
I heard Miller make that motion & Hicks 2nd it............ then the phone rang. The next thing I know, Puleo is on the council! What happened? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 06:18:47 AM
|
| Councilor DiFlorio brought up that the city solicitor had already rendered an opinion on the issue of filling seats. The city solicitor took the podium to re-affirm her decision. The motion to lay the item on the table for two weeks was voted down on a voice vote. Councilor Miller left the floor. Everyone else, including Kay Hicks, voted for Puleo. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 07:49:28 AM
|
I had the same problem as Justme, my phone rang just after Hicks nominated Lo Russo. I missed that entire Miller part. I take back part of my previous post. I won't vote for any damn one of them except Miller.
It seems to me, most of the Common Council would rather kiss the mayor's butt rather that go by the wishes of the voters. I really hope someone pushes this issue. It needs to be settled by someone other than our solicitor. I don't understand how they can be working under two different charters. It makes no sense. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 08:10:40 AM
|
Wait............ Hicks nominated Lo Russo & then voted for Puleo? Did anyone second Lo Russo?
I'm not a Miller fan but she did the right thing last night which is more than can be said for the rest of those losers!
I hope we have some new people stepping up next election. The current group leave a lot to be desired....... |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 09:32:33 AM
|
| No one seconded the LoRusso nomination. And yes, that's how Hicks voted. |
|
|
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:26:03 AM
|
| Like you stated Tetris, if LoRusso wasn't there, it seems like he has no interest in the seat, so why should anyone else have his back? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 12:00:06 PM
|
I would say it wasn't a lack of interest and more knowing Puleo had the vote. We all saw that handwriting on the wall.
Does anyone have a name and contact/email address for someone in the state that we, the public, can contact on this Charter issue? I think there is a very good possibility that the solicitors opinion is flawed. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 12:29:15 PM
|
| There's a old saying Huey. Maybe you've heard of it. "You can't fight City Hall!" |
|
|
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 12:35:18 PM
|
I highly doubt that Attorney Mejia's opinion is flawed due to any special influence. Who would risk being disbarred and throwing 7 years of higher education out the window? It makes sense that the new charter doesn't apply to filling vacancies. The whole 20% factor has no relevance to the current bi-cameral form of government.
Just my opinion. |
Edited by - Baby Huey on 03/06/2012 12:36:52 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 12:40:09 PM
|
| Please explain why the 20% factor couldn't have any any relevance to the current bi-cameral form of government. |
|
|
|
Baby Huey
Member
95 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 12:55:03 PM
|
| IMO, it seems as though the way the charter was written, and it's the opinion of several members of the commission, is that the aspect of things that are relevant to city government shouldn't take place until 2014. I attended many meetings and it was repeatedly stated by members that those aspects wouldn't take place intill 2014. Once again, just my opinion. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 1:03:48 PM
|
Does anyone have a name and contact/email address for someone in the state that we, the public, can contact on this Charter issue? I think there is a very good possibility that the solicitors opinion is flawed.
[/quote]
Someone passed this info on to me for those who are interested.
Marilyn Contreas
Senior Program and Policy Analyst
Massachusetts Department of
Housing and Community Development
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300
Boston, MA 02114
Marilyn.Contreas@state.ma.us
|
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 1:14:57 PM
|
| What would someone from the Department of Housing & Community Development have to do with the Charter? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 1:20:48 PM
|
Justme, that's exactly what I was wondering. I didn't have the opportunity to ask the person about it, but it did come from an excellent source so I am assuming it is correct.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
2012 Common Council
