| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 11:44:34 AM
|
| I think the charter should be changed, we should not allow anyone with an immediate family member working for the City of Everett run for Public Office. That could cut down some, on the intimidation factor. Just a thought. |
 |
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 1:21:08 PM
|
I think you'd have some constitutional issues on that one, massdee. That's essentially denying someone the right to be part of the political process. I think civil rights advocates would be all over that, and I can't say I would disagree with them.
|
|
|
|
Ellen
Senior Member
173 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 2:04:40 PM
|
| I know you are right, Citizen, but boy would it tie Freddy's hands. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 2:14:23 PM
|
| I really wasn't thinking about anyones Civil Rights. I was thinking of all of us, and actually only on the FFF problem. So, we can we just make it pertain to the School Department? LOL |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 3:20:03 PM
|
| Wouldn't it be nice if it could work that way? :-) |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 8:42:30 PM
|
| I don't think it would be fair to ban people from running for office because they are related to a city employee. I understand the thinking but there has got to be a better way. We need more people running for these posts. You could campaign against an incumbent on the basis of them having a conflict of interest. All's fair in love and war and all that. I just think people who refuse to do the right thing because of fear for a relatives job should be defeated at the polls fair and square. An outright ban even if it could pass constitutional muster would be un-democratic. |
|
|
|
the penguin
Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 8:52:36 PM
|
| Ragucci was one of few that stood up to FFF...where is he now? Mrs. Gover was the other...where is she now? Smith seems to be the only one standing. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 9:02:54 PM
|
| I had forgotten about Cathy Gover. I think she would be an excellent candidate to shake up the school committee. Maybe the silver lining in making this a paid position will be making it more attractive to people like her. Nobody wants to see the current bunch compensated for their malfeasance but maybe others will challenge them now that theres a small salary and possible pension at the end of the rainbow. A little competition please! FFF is like the wicked witch and the school committe is like the flying monkeys. Toss a bucket of water on them. Hopefully we won't be in Kansas anymore. |
|
|
|
spinncitycinn
Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 06:43:08 AM
|
| gover is living in Reading, too bad she should just use an address in everett to start her run. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 10:30:54 AM
|
| I was'nt aware she had moved. That's too bad for Everett. She was one of the few who did an admirable job on the common council then gave RVC all he could handle in her bid for alderman. She would've been excellent on the school committee. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 11:16:35 PM
|
Here's an old story I just came across, some of you may not have been around long enough to remember this one.
In the Matters of John Shay and Frederick Foresteire (July 7, 1992)
The Ethics Commission fined Everett School Committee member John Shay and Everett School Superintendent Frederick Foresteire for violating the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest law when Foresteire arranged for a “free” paint job for Shay’s apartment done by a school department painter. In separate Disposition Agreements reached with the Ethics Commission, both Shay and Foresteire admitted that their actions violated G.L. c. 268A, the conflict law, and agreed to pay the fines. Shay admitted to violating Section 3 of the conflict law, which prohibits public employees from accepting anything of substantial value ($50 or more) that is given to them for or because of their official position. Shay agreed to pay a $500 fine for the violation, and also agreed to pay an additional $250 forfeiture to the Commonwealth for the unlawful benefit of the paint job. Foresteire admitted to violating Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law by asking a school department painter to paint Shay’s apartment, and agreed to pay a $250 civil penalty for the violation. Section 23(b)(3) prohibits public employees from acting in a manner that would cause an objective observer to conclude that they would act with bias in the performance of their official duties. According to both Disposition Agreements, in April of 1990 Shay was in the process of moving into a new apartment. On April 4, Shay telephoned Foresteire to discuss School Committee matters. During the conversation, Shay mentioned that he was having trouble with the workers he had hired to paint his new apartment and feared the apartment would not be ready for the upcoming weekend move. The next day, the Agreements said, Foresteire approached an Everett School Department painter who was working in the school administration building and asked him to look at Mr. Shay’s apartment and give advice regarding what could be done to finish the job on time. Later that day, the painter and Foresteire travelled to and examined Shay’s apartment. The painter told Foresteire that a significant amount of work was needed prior to the scheduled weekend move. The painter agreed to assist in the apartment painting and requested a personal day, which Foresteire granted. Everett School Department employees are allocated two personal days a year. Over the next three days, the painter worked more than 22.5 hours and expended approximately $300 in labor and supplies, according to the Disposition Agreements. Shay encountered the painter working in his apartment on two or three occasions, and became aware through these encounters that the painter worked for the school department. Shay never offered to compensate the painter.
|
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 06:27:28 AM
|
This was posted on the Mirror some time ago. I think it just goes to show that the superintendent has been ethically challenged throughout his career, and we've never had a school committee with the testicular fortitude to stand up to him. There's nothing new about Fred's bad behavior; he's been "helping himself" to whatever he wanted or needed since day one.
But it's "all about the kids." Except when it's about the money, perks, benefits and entertainment. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 09:26:07 AM
|
I wish we would have some different people running for school committee. That is the only way something will be done with our "ethically challenged" superintendent.
|
|
|
|
Ellen
Senior Member
173 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 10:32:23 AM
|
| Word has it that someone by the name of Brian Moran is going to run for Sch Com ward 3. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 10:51:34 AM
|
| Anybody out there know who he is? We have to make sure he's not another F3 fool. The current occupant of the Ward III seat is Frank Parker, one of his big water carriers. It wouldn't be a bad thing to take him off the committee. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
School Committee Meeting
