| Author |
 Topic  |
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2007 : 06:18:54 AM
|
EVERETT
Fired assessor hires a lawyer
Mayor denies Keverian a hearing
By Kay Lazar, Globe Staff | November 25, 2007
George Keverian isn't walking away from his lifelong love of politics just yet.
The former House speaker, who was abruptly dismissed from his post as Everett's chief assessor on Nov. 14, then was denied six days later his request for an administrative hearing on the issue, has hired an attorney.
"We can proceed judicially or talk to the city; that's up to the advice the lawyer gives," Keverian said. "The fact that the mayor says no to a hearing - that's why I get a lawyer."
Keverian, 76, was fired by Mayor John Hanlon, ordered in a letter to immediately clean out the office he held for 12 years and turn in his keys to City Hall.
The timing of the termination, coupled with Keverian's considerable status - a City Hall meeting room and an Everett elementary school bear his name - has ignited political tensions in a city known for tough politics.
The city's Board of Aldermen has requested that Hanlon explain his reasons for the firing at the board's regular meeting tomorrow night.
"Why did he do it now?" asked Ward 2 Alderman Jason Marcus, who formally requested Hanlon's appearance before the board. "It doesn't make sense to me. [Hanlon] is leaving in January."
Hanlon lost his bid for reelection in September, the first time in recent memory that an incumbent Everett mayor did not survive the preliminary election.
Keverian said he believes he was fired because he supported a candidate not backed by Hanlon in November's general election.
Keverian publicly supported the mayoral campaign of Board of Alderman president Joseph McGonagle, while Hanlon openly backed McGonagle's rival, At Large Alderman Carlo DeMaria.
DeMaria won.
Hanlon, who leaves office in January, said it was job performance, not politics, that prompted him to ax Keverian, a Beacon Hill power broker for more than two decades before taking the assessors' job in his hometown of Everett.
Hanlon said he intends to attend tomorrow night's aldermen meeting but doesn't plan on saying much.
"It's none of their business," Hanlon said. "This is an administrative procedure, not a legislative procedure, and one doesn't mix with another."
Hanlon said his administration did grant a hearing last year after firing procurement chief John Garron.
"It wound up in court," Hanlon added. "I don't want to open the city to that kind of thing again."
The city's insurance company ended up settling with Garron, Hanlon said, rather than slogging through a trial. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
The mayor's Nov. 20 letter to Keverian states, in part, "Since you serve at the pleasure of the mayor, and since the position has been eliminated, it has been determined that you are not entitled to a hearing."
DeMaria said he is backing Hanlon's decision to fire Keverian, saying it is the mayor's discretion. He also said that his transition team will study whether Keverian's position as head of the department of assessors is still needed, and if so, he will post the job.
Keverian is not sure of his next step.
"I have in the past taught college students in evening extension courses, when I was first retired, and I enjoyed it," he said.
"I honestly don't know the possibilities for someone like me. I am not looking for the money."
Keverian, a lifelong bachelor, owns a four-family home with three tenants.
He has a state pension of $54,138.84 per year, according to the state treasurer's office. That takes into account his 11 years on Everett's Common Council and his 24 years on Beacon Hill, including six as House speaker.
State law allows a retired public employee to work again in the public sector but limits annual hours to no more than 960 - about 19.5 hours a week - and the salary to no more than the difference between the employee's pension and what the former position currently pays.
In Keverian's case, that would be $39, 098.31, which is the difference between the amount of his current pension, $54,138.84, and the current salary of the House speaker, which is $93,237.15, according to the House clerk's office.
Everett's personnel director, Jim Henderson, said Keverian's salary was approximately $39,000 but he declined to state his precise salary, citing an employee's privacy rights.
Kay Lazar can be reached at klazar@globe.com
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 08:57:24 AM
|
I am disappointed to read that Carlo is backing Hanlon's decision and will post the postion, if he finds it is needed.
"DeMaria said he is backing Hanlon's decision to fire Keverian, saying it is the mayor's discretion. He also said that his transition team will study whether Keverian's position as head of the department of assessors is still needed, and if so, he will post the job." |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 09:42:56 AM
|
As much as I don't agree with the way that the firing of Mr Keverian was handled, I'm not sure that dragging the issue thru a three ring circus at the BOA meeting is appropriate either. Based upon the budget hearings, we know that the mayor does not believe that the city council has the right to involve themselves in employment issues per the city charter. All that we're going to get is another ugly exchange played out on TV.
With that said, this is probably headed to court if Mr. Keverian is truly not interested in the money. If it does go to court though, Mr. Keverian can probably at least get the money needed to pay for his lawyer and any court costs and the taxpayers will pay for that at least in the amount of increased insurance premiums. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.
As far as Carlo's position in all this, I'm also disappointed in what I've read but I'll wait and see how things actually play out before I comment any more on it.
|
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 09:52:07 AM
|
Doesn't the Assessor's position have to be approved by the Board of Aldermen? I'm not sure . . . just asking the question.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 09:59:21 AM
|
| Citizen, I don't remember, was Bill Harts position approved by the BOA? |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 10:17:27 AM
|
Yes, but that's a different position. Bill Hart is Chairman of the Board of Assessors; Keverian is a department head. I'm just not sure if his is a department head position that has to be approved by the Board of Aldermen, like the City Solicitor, for instance.
|
|
|
|
Been Here to Long
Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 11:11:55 AM
|
| I am amazed at the lack of professionalism used in terminating Mr. Keverian, if Hanlon has truly eliminated this position and Carlo decides it is needed I believe legally Mr. Keverian has an execellent case. It is my belief as many others that this was truly a Hanlon get even tactic and it scares me that the Mayor Elect is backing Hanlon. How much does the Mayor Elect owe Hanlon. This is something we should all worry about. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 11:15:47 AM
|
| Citizen, I just spoke to my "source." He said, "that's the twenty-five thousand dollar question." He asked at City Hall and has not been replied to. He thinks, since it is a department head position, that the position cannot be done away with without a vote of the BOA. That's not to say, someone can't be let go, they can. When he knows if the BOA needs to vote to hire, I will let you know, unless, someone can find out sooner. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 11:18:07 AM
|
P.S.
My "source" also told me,"Mayor Hanlon and others will be remaining to work for the City." |
Edited by - massdee on 11/25/2007 11:28:15 AM |
|
|
|
AVGMOM
Member
83 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 4:16:51 PM
|
| Massdee, your "source" is way off, Mayor Hanlon will not be part of the DeMaria administration in anyway. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 4:39:08 PM
|
| AVGMOM, I hope you are correct. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 4:39:43 PM
|
| You know, AVGMOM, you're so emphatic about your statements as to who will or won't be part of the new administration, one has to wonder exactly how close you are to the whole thing. Are you on the transition team? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 5:33:17 PM
|
I did some research about this issue in the city charter. The first two sections of the charter listed below I believe are what the mayor was using this summer to support his argument that the city council can not get involved in matters of employment.
Section 21. Employment of labor, making of contracts, etc.
Neither the city council nor either branch thereof, nor any committee or member thereof, shall directly or indirectly take part in the employment of labor.....
Section 24. General powers and duties of city council.
Except as herein otherwise provided the city council shall in general have and exercise the legislative powers of towns and of the inhabitants thereof, and shall have all the powers and authority given to city councils under the general laws of the Commonwealth, and be subject to the duties imposed on city councils; and the board of aldermen shall have and exercise all the powers, other than executive, given to selectmen of towns, and shall have all the powers and authority given to boards of aldermen of cities, and shall be subject to the duties imposed upon such boards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next three sections of the charter that I have included describe which positions are considered administrative officers of the city, the need for these officers to be approved by the Board of Alderman and who has the right to remove officers. The charter clearly gives the mayor the right to remove an officer "for such cause as he shall deem sufficient". What these sections don't clearly explain however is whether or not other department heads would be considered administrative officers.
Section 35. Administrative officers of the city.
There shall be the following administrative officers who shall perform the duties by law prescribed for them respectively, and such further duties, not inconsistent with the nature of their respective offices and with general laws, as the city council may prescribe: 1. A city treasurer. 2. A city collector. 3. A city auditor. 4. A city solicitor. 5. A board of assessors, consisting of three (3) persons. 6. [A board of overseer of the poor, consisting of three (3) persons]. 7. A board of health, consisting of three (3) persons. 8. A board of license commissioners, consisting of three (3) persons, in case the city authorizes the sale of intoxicating liquors. 9. An Executive Director of City Services who shall have the powers of a street commissioner and surveyor of highways; as well as supervisory powers over engineering, surveying and buildings and parks and cemeteries. The city council may from time to time, subject to the provisions of this act and in accordance with the General Laws, if they exist in any particular case, provide by ordinance for the establishment of additional boards and other offices for the construction and care of the various public works and buildings, for the direction and custody of public parks, for the management and control of a public library and a public hospital, and for other municipal purposes; may determine the number and duties of incumbents of such boards and offices, and for such purposes may delegate to such boards and offices the administrative powers given by general laws to city councils and boards of aldermen. The city council may likewise from time to time consolidate boards and offices, and may separate and divide the powers and duties of such as have already been established, may increase the number of persons constituting either of the boards above specified, and when such increase has been made may subsequently diminish the number, may increase or diminish the number of persons who shall perform the duties of an office hereafter established as above provided, and may abolish an office or board so hereafter established. It shall be the duty of the mayor to appoint all the officers above specified, and unless otherwise provided all those for whom provision shall hereafter be made, on or before the first Monday in February in the municipal year, and their terms of office shall begin on the first Monday in March and shall continue for one year or for such other period as the city council shall by ordinance in any case provide, except that the terms of office of all the officers so specified who shall be first appointed hereunder shall begin respectively upon their appointment and qualification. Every administrative officer shall unless sooner removed hold office until his successor is appointed and qualified.
Editor's note--The reference to a board of overseer of the poor has been placed in brackets as all such local boards have been abolished by state statute. Subsection 9 amended in 2001.
Section 29. Mayor to appoint officers, confirmation by board of aldermen.
The mayor shall appoint, subject to the confirmation or rejection of the board of aldermen, all the officers of the city unless their election or appointment is herein otherwise provided for. No such appointment made by the mayor shall be acted upon by the board of aldermen until the expiration of one (1) week from the time when the appointment is transmitted to the board. Any officer so appointed may be removed by the mayor for such cause as he shall deem sufficient and shall assign in his order of removal, and the removal shall take effect upon the filing of the order therefor in the office of the city clerk and the service of a copy of such order upon the officer removed, either personally or at his last or usual place of residence. The city clerk shall keep such order on file and subject to public inspection.
Section 38. Administrative boards, etc., may appoint and discharge subordinate officers, etc.
The administrative boards and officers specified in section thirty-five, and every administrative board and officer hereafter established by the city council under the provisions of section thirty-five to forty-three, inclusive, and having the charge of a department, shall have the power, except as herein otherwise provided, to appoint and employ and to discharge and remove all subordinate officers, clerks and assistants in their respective departments; and they shall keep a record, subject to inspection, of all so appointed and employed and of all discharged and removed, and, in case of discharge and removal, of the grounds therefor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last section of the charter that I have included perhaps can be used to make a case for department heads to be considered officers of the city, i.e., "heads of departments and by all other officers".
Section 32. Estimates of amounts deemed necessary for the several departments.
The mayor shall (in the month of January of each year) cause to be made to him by the heads of departments and by all other officers and boards having authority to spend money...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charter, as usual, raises as many questions as it answers.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 5:54:56 PM
|
| So, if I am reading this correctly, we still do not know if the BOA approves the Department Head for the Board of Accessors. Is that your take, Tetris? |
|
|
|
Cam
Member
82 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 7:18:18 PM
|
| Tomorrow nights Alderman's meeting should be very interesting. Does anyone have the agenda? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 8:01:02 PM
|
Massdee,
My take is that the city charter is, for the most part, a document that is open to interpretation and the city solicitor will provide the mayor with whatever interpretation that he wants. However, a court may interpret it differently.
To take the conversation in a little different direction, one issue that we have discussed before on this board is whether or not Mr. Keverian was a member of the Board of Assessors as well as the department head. I thought that we had agreed that he was. Has he been removed from this position as well? It would seem that this would only make sense in light of the other move. If this is so, the explanation that the position is being eliminated doesn't fly for that position since the charter states that this will be a three person board. The charter clearly gives the mayor the right to remove a member from this board "for such cause as he shall deem sufficient" but one could only assume the board member would have a right to know what that cause is. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
keverian hires a lawyer (good for him)
