| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 12:12:18 AM
|
| The one thing I am not 100% clear on, which parcel is the mayor in negotiations with Mr Thibeault? I am leaning towards the city yard, but I'm not sure. |
 |
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 07:13:54 AM
|
| It appears I missed a rather interesting meeting. Hopefully, I'll be able to catch a replay. Was there anything else on the agenda of interest? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 09:21:34 AM
|
| The meeting should air again at 11:00AM this morning. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 12:11:19 PM
|
Dominic,
In regards to the following portion of one your posts:
"Go ahead and make your point that the BoA meeting wasn't the right place for this, but you would be on the short end of that argument. Like it or not, the residents of Everett are watching the BoA meeting to help make a decision on the next mayor. All of the moderators and senior members of this forum encourage voters to watch the BoA meeting so they can get an better understnading of who to vote for in November. Was it your intent for them to make their decision based on who speaks better? Who looks better in a suit? There was a real issue being brought before the board tonight. Almost every resident in the city would have benefitted from the presentation. The only people who wouldn't benefit were Joe and his advisors. As a resident and voter, I am embarrassed by the actions of Marcus and DiPerri."
I apologize that I didn't respond to this post last night but since it was the last post on a page and things were flying so fast and furious last night, I overlooked it until much later last night.
First of all, there are rules of order which should be followed at all official city government meetings. I don't happen to have a copy of them but I'm sure that there are rules about what can not or should not be discussed. Even the city solicitor suggested that the item in question should have been referred to committee. As much as all of us would like to know more about this proposed project, this was not the time or the place.
I am one of those senior members of this forum who encourages voters to watch the city government meetings. I personally feel that it is the best way to judge a candidate, i.e., in unscripted, public moments. Personally, I'm not a fan of one on one campaigning. When I've been approached by candidates for political office, I try to never be rude to them but I do try to break off conversation with them as soon as possible. There may be some of them that I will talk to a bit longer but that is usually due to prior relationships with them.
Neither of the candidates for mayor is a great public speaker; I've posted that many times in the past. But I've also given them credit when I've felt that they have done a particularly good job speaking. I think if you go back and check, I've actually probably done more of that for Mr. DeMaria than I have for Mr. McGonagle. Read into that what you want but, when I have given them praise, it has always been intended as a compliment.
What I look for at these meetings is the content of what they say and their demeanor as they say it. I would say that in this regard, Mr. DeMaria started out very poorly on this piece by snapping at Mr. Marcus for wanting to ask a question. I didn't realize that he was running the meeting at this point. He didn't try to do the same thing to Mr. DiPerri though. We could try to go thru the entire discussion from last night and dissect it word by word, point by point but I'm sure that the best we would probably come up with is to agree to disagree.
I find the suit crack totally inappropriate. Being a large individual myself, I would never insult a candidate based on their appearance. I would hope that both Mr. DeMaria and Mr. McGonagle would find this comment inappropriate as well.
Yes, there was a real issue that was brought before the Board of Alderman last night; unfortunately, it was issue that has been made political. I have already posted how that came to be last night. A Board of Alderman meeting is not the forum for a political discussion. I got on Mr. McGonagle two weeks ago when he made what I considered to be a little bit of a political stump speech during the previous Board of Alderman meeting. I think that I'm entitled to do the same to Mr. DeMaria for last night.
You're probably right. A presentation of the proposed lower Broadway development would not have benefited every resident of the city. However, an open discussion of the project and all of the issues that surround it, excluding any discussion of the city yards, might. It is clear that Mr. DeMaria did not want that. Remember, the last Everett politician who had to have things only their way is currently scheduled to take a two year, or maybe permanent, vacation from Everett politics starting in January.
As a resident and a voter, you clearly have the right to feel however you'd like about Mr. Marcus' and Mr. Di Perri's actions last night; however, I would hope that you would acknowledge that there are some other residents and voters who feel very differently about them than you do.
The bottom line is I'm not asking people to watch the city meetings and come away the same impressions that I do; I'm just asking them to watch the meetings and make up their own minds.
And to address a point that came up in your debate with Massdee last night, I offer the following. I understand Mr. McGonagle's stance that he didn't want to back down from a fight; but, I can also understand Mr. McGonagle's decision to vote no on allowing Mr. Thibeault and/or his representative to speak. Again, any official city government meeting is not the place for a political discussion and it never should have been brought there in the first place. Mr. McGonagle should have made those points first before agreeing to take on the issue in any way, shape or form. His inability to make this clear does point out some of the flaws in his public speaking ability. He probably also should have stepped down from the chair as soon as this item was read from the calendar; he has a bad habit of not doing that. But, otherwise, I thought that he handled himself very credibly last night. Again, we will probably have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Dominic
Member
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 1:19:39 PM
|
Tetris...thanks for your response. As you suggest, it is probably best that we agree to disagree.
A note on why I feel so strong about my opinion....Our city faces huge challenges over the next few years. I think that without a comprehensive plan that looks beyond the next tax season, the city will become Chelsea of the early 90's. Preventing this is going to require change in Everett. The key to change is making sure everyone (all resident's, not just the BoA and CC)is well informed. Nobody is left to interpret a story they heard from someone in Church or read on a blog. What we saw last night went beyond a disection of content and demeanor. In my opinion we clearly saw a major difference in the candidates. One was all for keeping the public informed....hearing it straight from the source without the watering down that occurs with each degree of seperation. The other candidate was for keeping the information away from the residents, preferring that they only hear his view of the proposal.....a watered down, self serving view.
As far as what you referred to as "the suit crack".....it wasnt said as a size joke, sorry you interpreted it that way. The purpose of the comment was to show that you were encouraging people to watch the meeting then speaking out against the inclusion of relevant content in the meeting. That very same content would have provided useful information to the people you were encouraging to watch the meeting in the first place. It just doesn't make sense to me. You would be better off taping the meeting, editing out all of the parts you don't want people to see then posting it here so everyone can see the reality you are trying create. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 2:09:27 PM
|
Dominic,
Agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 2:20:26 PM
|
I agree we did see a major difference in the two candidates last night. Carlo only wanted Mr Thibeault's presentation allowed. The other candidate, Joe, wanted Mr Thibeault's presentation and the opportunity for him and fellow board members to question Mr Thibeault. Carlo clearly wanted the watered down version, while Joe wanted the entire package presented.
I think the point you are missing, everyone believes the lower Broadway issue is relevant, but since it has become a political issue, first introduced by Carlo himself, it has no place at the BOA meeting. I personally would love to see the issue debated in the proper forum. Let all the facts and figures come out from both candidates.
As far as Tetris goes........he has probably been one of the most unbiased posters on this board, especially when it comes to the City Council meetings. He calls it, as he sees it, and most often is right on point. It is an insult to Tetris, the way you ended your post, suggesting he is trying to create his own reality. We all have our own opinions and debate is good, there is no need to attack other posters personally, just because you don't agree with them. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 2:57:00 PM
|
Dominic,
If this issue was so important, why was it introduced under suspension? Why weren't all the members of the BOA afforded the courtesy of preparing for Mr. Thibeault's presentation, not to mention the viewing public? If the intention was to present an open forum of business development ideas for lower Broadway and not free political advertisement - why wasn't this handled appropriately (public hearing, traditional piece of business) instead of rushed under the radar? Is it possible that it was done this was to give Mr. DeMaria a competitive advantage in the discussion? It sure seems that way, and very self-serving. How does that square with making sure Everett citizens are well informed or was it really half-informed.
Dominic, it's very obvious that you're playing an insiders game, and your comments have been insightful. I tend to think of you as your candidate's attorney and PR team, which will certainly color your ability to be objective. Perhaps you can follow Tetris' example and simply "agree to disagree?"
|
|
|
|
Dominic
Member
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 3:09:19 PM
|
Fred....what you refer to as coloring my ability I call being open to change in this city. While it may or may not have been a political ploy, it doesnt change the fact that the city solicitor voiced concern about a presentation on the city yard site, not lower broadway. The residents should have been allowed to hear this information.
That said...I agree to disagree |
|
|
|
wanda bee
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 3:13:33 PM
|
Taylor,
Just for the record it was the son of the newspaper man from Chelsea and he moved out of Joe's house months ago. So you can stop with that
accusation.
Let me say I have not decided who I am going to vote for.
As an average citizen, my take on the meeting was about power.
The BOA stood behind Joe. So what does that tell you? |
|
|
|
Fedup
Member
86 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 4:55:21 PM
|
Dominic
Yes, I was very proud of Aldermen DiPerri and Marcus at last night’s BOA meeting. I am in strong agreement with you that we are all trying to make a well-informed and educated decision regarding our next Mayor. I would love to know what is being planned for our City from both candidates whether it be development on lower Broadway or North Everett. It doesn’t matter where. I want to be informed.
I am confused by your questions – “Was it your intent for them to make their decision based on who speaks better? Who looks better in a suit?” I never commented on anyone’s manner of speech or clothing, unless you are speaking hypothetically. Development in Everett is a real issue. My concerns were that the issue was not on the original published agenda. It was put there under suspension. When Alderman DiMaria mentioned the campaign, ads in the paper by his opponent and the questioning of his and Mr. Thibeault’s integrity, I felt he over-stepped the line. It became political. Aldermen DiPerri and Marcus stood up and stated that they did not want the meeting to become part of the political arena. I am still proud of them today.
I personally have learned more from this forum than I have from either Candidate’s literature or our three newspapers. Perhaps Alderman DiMaria can book some time with ECTV for his presentation, film it and put it on his website or write an article and place it in the newspapers.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Dominic
Member
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 8:17:11 PM
|
yes Fedup...I was speaking hypothetically. I was trying to draw attention the fact that an issue as important as the development of lower Broadway was available for public consumption and 3 members of the BoA decided it was important enough to hear.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 8:32:00 PM
|
| Actually, the vote was 4 to 2 against. |
|
|
|
Dominic
Member
65 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 8:38:16 PM
|
good point, Joe didn't think the truth was a good idea either. That makes 4
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 9:04:06 PM
|
| That is just a matter of opinion. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Down to the wire
