| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 7:15:15 PM
|
Well, here are SOME of my facts....
Mass. Cities Cited For Ignoring Vet Services Law
Reporting
Joe Shortsleeve BOSTON (WBZ) ¯ Massachusetts is cracking down on municipal leaders across the state as some communities are not providing legally mandated services for our veterans.
Our soldiers come home heroes but are often forgotten at Town Hall.
Veterans are entitled to certain benefits for housing, education, health care and much more.
These benefits are supposed to be handed out at the local level. In fact, every community is required by law to have a veteran's services officer.
But in this day of tight budgets, many towns are breaking the law and cutting back the position.
State officials are citing Danvers, Fitchburg, Framingham, Gloucester, Melrose and Milton, as well as others communities, with flaunting the law.
All communities are getting a letter signed by the Attorney General. It's a stern reminder that says, all cities and towns with populations over 12,000 must employ a full time veteran services officer
"If municipalities are not stepping up to the plate -- and the good news is most of them are -- but if communities are not, we are seriously going at look at intervening," said Lt. Gov. Tim Murray.
In some towns like Norwood, the veteran's services officer is swamped with work because vets who can't get help in their towns all go to Norwood.
The letter requires town leaders to provide the name of their veteran services officer to the state by March 1.
|
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 8:40:56 PM
|
March 6, 2008 Boston Globe
EVERETT
HICKEY MAY SEEK VETERANS POST - Ward 4 Common Councilor Joseph Hickey said he is considering applying for the city's newly posted Veterans Services commissioner position. Mayor Carlo DeMaria last week terminated Walter Rice, who held the position for two years and was appointed by former mayor John Hanlon. "The mayor appreciates the service that Mr. Rice provided to the veterans in the Everett community, but he has decided to exercise his right to put someone in this position, and he will ensure that the veterans community in Everett continues to receive the same standard of services, if not better services, in the future," said Erin Deveney, DeMaria's chief of staff. Shortly after his termination, Rice posted a message on the Everett Mirror blog, which said, in part, "All I ask is that everyone remember the quality of life of several veterans hang in the balance on a monthly basis through any and all debate. Please remember them - they still need the city's help. I have a tentative offer in private industry to commence the first of next year; but for reasons very personal to me, my heart remains with Veterans work and always will." Hickey, 56, said the prospect of serving as the city's veterans commissioner is one that has long been "near and dear" to him, and that he lobbied Hanlon and his predecessor, former mayor David Ragucci, for the spot. "I did two tours of duty in Vietnam when people were burning their draft cards. I brought the Vietnam Moving Wall to the city of Everett in 2005 and I am now working on the Veterans Memorial Park next to the high school," he said. If Hickey does apply, he would have to resign his seat on the council, but would still face a conflict of interest issue unless his appointment was delayed. State ethics law requires that "No councilor shall be eligible for appointment to such additional position while a member of said council or for six months thereafter." - Kay Lazar |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 10:21:30 PM
|
A long-winded attempt to bring some reason back to the discussion of the Veteran's Services Officer (VSO) position.
As has been mentioned many times, in the papers and on the blogs (even by Mr. Rice himself), a person that excepts an appointed city position should be well aware that they serve at the pleasure of whoever is the current mayor. I think that we all have to agree on that.
Mayor DeMaria's method of informing those appointees whose jobs were safe was to give them a letter that stated that fact. Anyone who did not receive this letter had to be aware that their jobs could be in jeopardy. The Globe article that listed the positions that had received the letter did not include the VSO. This is the only information that most us have about who received one of these letters and it may not be complete. But I'm going to assume (yeah, I know) that Mr. Rice was not the recipient of one of these letters. The fact that he stated in one of his first posts after his dismissal that he knew what was up when he saw Mr. Henderson sitting in the mayor's office when he went for his appointment seems to support the assumption. So when Mr. Rice went on vacation, he was probably aware that his job was at some risk.
A number of us think that we know why the mayor let Mr. Rice go so abruptly. However, as Mr. Rice also posted early on, no connection was made by the administration between his refusal to turn over confidential information and his termination. I'm no lawyer but I would have to think that without any proof of a connection, this would be considered circumstantial evidence, at best, and there would not be the basis for a wrongful termination suit, if one were even possible.
I think that we can also assume that the firing of Mr. Rice was not a premeditated move on the Mayor's part but something that came to a head that day. As has been stated by someone recently on another issue, most of us are not privy to what goes on behind the closed doors of city hall; therefore, most of us have no idea what led up to that point and what caused the decision to be made. It was posted last week that the Mayor was not talking about what went on between him and Mr. Rice. I would have to believe then that the Mayor should be very disappointed to see what was published in the paper today.
I would agree that the Mayor has been mostly mum on Mr. Rice's termination. The only time that I have heard him mention it was in his speech at the Friendly Son's dinner. I believe that the lack of information provided to the general public about what is going on with the VSO position is the real issue that most of us have. At Monday's Common Council meeting, Councilor King alluded to something happening with the position in the near future; but, most of us have no idea what that is. Let's hope that something happens soon since it is hard for many of us to reasonably believe that one person, who is supposed to work in an office part-time, can continue to support the entire office over an extended period of time without any negative impact to themselves, the people that they serve or their other responsibilities.
The other issue that some of us seem to have is with a political seat holder possibly being considered to fill this position. I have come out in the past and stated that I am not in favor of city employees holding elected positions with the certain exceptions (i.e. school department vs. city, etc.). I realize that state law expressly allows it; I just don't happen to agree with it. I believe that most city jobs, with the obvious exception of the mayor's inner circle, should be as apolitical as possible. Therefore, I feel that no one should be allowed to step down from an elected position to take a city position. Once again, my beliefs don't agree with state law; that's O.K. with me, as long as the laws are followed. I don't care what's been done in the past. If the State Ethics Commission can't follow the law, why should anyone else? Laws are passed for a reason; if they are not followed, let's revisit them and get them off the books or modify them, if necessary.
I don't believe that it is the Mayor's intention to fill the VSO position with one of the elected officials whose names have been mentioned for the job. If that was his first choice, the position would probably be filled by now. However, if no other suitable candidates are found for the job, he may be forced to reconsider that decision. With all of the acrimony that exists around this issue, I believe that this would probably be done only as a last resort. As I have posted before, let's see if it happens before we get too worked up about it.
Some people have argued that this issue will sink any re-election bid by the Mayor. I have to respectfully disagree. With no disrespect to Mr. Rice, if the Mayor finds a suitable replacement in a reasonable amount of time who can do the job anywhere nearly as well as Mr. Rice (or perhaps better), this will be a mostly forgotten issue in a year's time. Even if that doesn't happen, at best, I could only see it being a contributing factor to any possible downfall. I believe that there are much larger issues and challenges ahead that will be more important in determining the fate of the current administration.
As far as the source of the regulation that was quoted earlier today, it will not be found under MGL; it is actually part of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations or CMR. If you enter "CMR Mass" into any search engine, you likely find a searchable copy. The regulation referenced can be found under 108 CMR Section 12.03. It is a very clear regulation and does not require a lawyer's interpretation. Although it is not part of the regulation, one would have to assume that when someone is discharged from this position, the city would have a reasonable amount of time to find a suitable replacement. It may not be the best time for this position to be vacant but as long as the city does something about it in a timely manner, there probably won't be a huge issue with the state either.
Tails, I do understand your frustration. You wore your heart on your sleeve when you were a supporter of the Mayor and you still do now. I believe you feel very betrayed by the Mayor, who you believe lied to you during his campaign. You did some work for him and now he won't give you the time of day on issues that are important to you. I can't tell you what to do about that but I'm sure that you'll figure it out for yourself at some point. In regards to this particular issue, you don't agree with the Mayor's actions on an ethical basis; you are well within your rights to do so and others probably agree with you. But, I believe that you need to see that the Mayor was also well within his legal rights to do what he did. I don't expect you to agree with all of the points of this post but I hope that you will consider them. And most importantly, no hard feelings are intended. I'm sure that we can agree to disagree where we need to. |
Edited by - tetris on 03/19/2008 10:27:30 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2008 : 09:17:35 AM
|
Thank you for that tetris. That was well written and very nice. Without rehashing everything, you are correct with the fact that I am disappointed. I just want to point out that I knew the regulation was under 108 CMR Section 12.03. The chapter 475 ( what ever I said) was a little ploy because people calling me to the carpet saying I was Walter (I don't even know Walter, but I know of his work and work ethic)so I called them to the carpet too and now I know exactly what's going on.
This issue was not becasue Walter Rice was let go from the Mayor for his discretion it was an injustice that was done to him. I have said over and over it's not the fact that the Mayor fired Walter, it was the unethical manner in which it was done. Walter deserved the same respect that Jerry Sheehan received along with the former budget director. Just like they were let go, Walter should have had the same respect. But no, you had RVC (I'm not blaming him, I now understand his position)laying on the table funding for the veterans until paper work was received, however, nothing was asked of Mr. Zaniboni for his City Services transfer. Then within a week the Mayor asks for a list of names and the very same day he lets Walter go in the unethical manner in how it was done. Now all of a sudden becasue of the heat he is taking their coming out with Walter was name calling. I mean...come on...and using the newspapers to their advantage. It's not right. I would have called him a name too the way this was done. The most important issue is for three weeks now the veterans of this community do not have a VSO and I'm sure Gerri is doing everything she can but she's not superwoman and before letting Walter go, there should have been a replacement first. Why is the Mayor only starting to look now if it was his discretion to replace Walter all along? Those pieces of the puzzle do not fit. That was in the best interest of the veterans and the Mayor did not handle it right.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 09:22:28 AM
|
| On the subject of the V.S.O., in todays Leader Herald on page 13, there is an ad for a City of Everett, Veterans Agent Vacancy. |
|
|
|
wanda bee
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 11:33:40 AM
|
Tails is just way to passionate about this subject.
So much so it's kinda scary!
Fact Walter was verbally abusive to the Mayors staff.
If I or my husband (we work in the private sector)
acted in the mannor that he conducted himself
we would have also been terminated on the spot.
As adults we need to have better self control.
Even though the Mayor has been actively looking for a VSO, this subject just won't go away.....Tails sometimes we need to know when to let things go!!!
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 12:07:59 PM
|
Wanda Bee,
So how do you happen to be in possession of this "fact" that most of us the rest of us were unaware of until yesterday when you first posted it and just wondering alluded to it? As you rightly pointed out, such behavior might indeed be a valid ground for termination, whether you work in the public or the private sector. But it isn't the stated reason why the mayor let Mr. Rice go. Even it is true, why bring it up now? Our friend Tails might be a bit overzealous but, that's no reason to take the low road with Mr. Rice, especially after you rightfully pointed out that the Mayor has taken the opposite position on this issue. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 12:12:44 PM
|
Until today, I did not write off the Mayor. I thought he would see people’s concerns and do the right thing and I have always spoken out in defense to him, voted for him, campaigned for him in both the primary and election night. There is a Vet that is near and dear too me (and it’s not Walter) and I know first hand how important this issue is. Some just need to talk and have a VSO to come home and talk too. They can’t afford therapy or don’t want it but will go to a brother veteran for help. You have no idea how many people Walter has helped in this way and to leave that office vacant even for a week in our time of war is wrong.
Wanda, you know so much about closed door issues that it’s perfectly clear how this administration in being run so AS OF TODAY, my mind is made up that I will NEVER support DeMaria again with this type of administration. This morning, I even had a glimmer of hope, thanks to tetris, but that's out the window now so...Thank you Wanda for making up my mind for me.
|
|
|
|
wanda bee
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 1:07:24 PM
|
Your welcome
I only spoke up now because I'm sick of the ranting of a discruntled
voter? He has brought it up over and over....So maybe someone needs to let the truth be known! Time to move on!!!
No low road but why is it ok to bash DeMaria over untruths.
I did not vote for him, but I think he's doing a good job.
Tails should run for Mayor! Tetris can be the City Solicitor!
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 1:49:16 PM
|
Wanda Bee,
Just a couple more questions and I'll be glad to move on. Once again, how do you happen to be in possession of the "truth" when most of us the rest of us are not? What are the untruths that the Mayor is being bashed over?
No thanks on the city solicitor job. |
|
|
|
wanda bee
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 2:59:24 PM
|
"not legal"
"unethical behavior"
on and on about "Mr Rice did nothing wrong"
(in fact he did and he knows it)
"Mr Rice should have been told before he went on vacation"
"did not have the best interest of the Veterans in mind"
Come on, why don't you ask Tails how he knows so much? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 5:44:41 PM
|
Wanda Bee,
With the exception of the "not legal" issue, which a couple of us found necessary to address with our friend Tails, I could argue that most of these other "untruths" are actually either opinions, which everyone is entitled to, or interpretations of events based upon the information that has been made available to the general public. You, of course, are also entitled to your opinion about them as well.
So, let me get this straight. Because you were upset with Tails' posts, you felt the need to bash Mr. Rice with allegations from a source that you've been asked about twice and refuse to divulge?
Thanks. I'm done now and ready to move on. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 7:25:33 PM
|
as if the tetris',tails and massdee's of this blog don't have sources they refuse to divulge.
Anyway.....how's everyone feeling about the state of our school system? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 8:06:24 PM
|
Just Wondering,
I can't speak for the others but I have no problems divulging all of my sources of information about the city. They are ECTV, the local newspapers, the Boston newspapers, literature from political campaigns, credible information that can be found on the internet and personal observations of things that I see going on around the city. If you feel that there is a particular item that I have posted about in my time on this board that I could not have gotten from one of these sources, please let me know and I'll gladly give you the details of where my information came from. This offer also extends to any future posts that I may make.
(Edited to include literature from political campaigns. Sorry, forgot about that when I first posted.) |
Edited by - tetris on 03/20/2008 9:26:58 PM |
|
|
|
wanda bee
Member
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 09:09:39 AM
|
I want it to be known I did not bash Mr. Rice.
I heard he did a great job as the VSO. All I did was tell Tails I thought he was wrong in his "opinions" of the situation. I shared information for the reasons I heard Mr. Rice was let go.
It was sudden and un planned by the Mayor, but his (Mr. Rice's) behavior called for it that day.
How does Tails know so much about Mr. Rice and his vacation,
his bills, and his life? How does he know about Ms.Deveney?
Those are things I did not know?
I get my information much the same as everyone else, and sometimes happen to overhear conversations!
Again, I did not bash Mr. Rice, he knows what happened leading up to his termination and the real reasons why he was let go.
I wish him well in his future plans. As my mother always said "things happen for a reason". Maybe Mr. Rice will be better off without a city job. OK now I'm moving on....I'll be out of town for the Holidays...so Blessed Good Friday and Happy Easter to ALL
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
BOSTON GLOBE
