| Author |
 Topic  |
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 2:06:17 PM
|
| you almost made it through an entire post without mentioning Wood Waste......good job Tails. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 04/29/2008 : 2:57:02 PM
|
| WOW!! Did it take the entire legal team to come up with that one? It's better than being all pouty and stamping our feet like a child when we don't get our way. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 4:08:48 PM
|
Tails,
That was an excellent post and I believe right on target, just wondering is correct............Good Job!!!!!!! |
Edited by - massdee on 04/29/2008 4:11:22 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 08:22:06 AM
|
Are we expected to believe that choosing Ms. Deveney was an afterthought after the exhaustive statewide search? The way things shake out in City Hall, I'm just willing to bet my house that Ms. Deveney doesn't live in Everett and it will be a huge coincidence (not) that the recent change in residency law works to her advantage. Was someone just trying to buy time so the ordinance could be changed? Let's not forget she is already collecting the salary. The Mayor is just asking for a belated approval by trying to justify additional responsibilities when in fact, all she will get is an additional title. Much akin to closing the barn door after the horse got out.
To further insult the intelligence of the Everett voter, Ms. Deveney is called up in front of the Board for a legal opinion on a position that has her in the center of the controversy. That makes absolutely no sense. How can Ms Deveney give an unbiased opinion on an issue that is about herself? This was exactly the kind of thing I was leery of when I first read this appointment on the agenda. It didn't take long for my doubts to be realized. |
Edited by - massdee on 04/30/2008 08:32:40 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 08:34:14 AM
|
You're on the money with this one massdee. Carlo is not the brightest bulb in the string and seems to think the rest of us also play with a short deck! On the surface, things look okay, but I'd bet my house that there are a few more people and positions he's going to put the screws to.
Does anyone know how many appointed positions there are in the city and what (who) they are? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 09:32:09 AM
|
Justme,
It depends on what you mean by appointed positions.
There is an "official" list of appointments in Section 2.31 of the city's ordinances, along with the time frames of when these appointments need to be made and the length of the appointments. All police and now firefighters positions are appointments subject to confirmation by the BOA. Even though it is not in the city's ordinances, MGL (can't recall which chapter but I could find it again) specifies that the VSO is an appointed position subject to confirmation; I don't believe that this practice has been followed in the city in recent memory though. There could be be other positions under MGL but I haven't happened to run across any in my travels. I've also made the arguement before that all non-union positions could be considered appointed positions, just not subject to confirmation by anyone other that the Mayor. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 09:41:15 AM
|
| Speaking of the VSO, I am real curious who will get that position. I hope the Mayor brings it to the BOA very soon. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 09:49:43 AM
|
Yes, I hope so too. It’s very sad in today’s war crisis this has not been a priority to this administration. He should have been “actively seeking” a long time ago. This is the “language” that the administration is using. Just like the exhaustive statewide search for a solicitor. (yea...okay) It’s just a total disregard when you have stories like this.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 12:27:21 PM
|
| I only skimmed through the public documents and I find the Solicitor appointment interesting too. Perhaps this is where the exhaustive statewide search comes to play. I know there was an acting city solicitor but she was suppose to be appointed the first Monday in February. Section 2-47 says she must a member of the bar of the commonwealth, in good standing and also a resident of the city. Did that get passed to change the residency for the solicitor? I may have missed that, I know the Mayor requested it... |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2008 : 1:50:50 PM
|
| The modification to Section 2-47 in regards to the city solicitor residency requirement received its final ordainment on 02/06/08. Clearly, the online version of the city ordinances has not been updated yet to reflect this change. Same goes for the ordinance changes that have been passed so far to eliminate the board of fire commissioners. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 7:56:17 PM
|
Just got around to reading the Independent and they are correct that Ms. Deveney will receive a nice pay raise for herself and I still do not see the cost saving here. There is absolutely a conflict of interest and I hope the state ethics board findings are made public and that they are honest. I personally do not believe she will give impartial legal advice to the City Council or for the taxpayers concerns. She is too close to the Mayor and her position should be one or the other.
Section 43 of the City Charter reads:
Section 43. Salaries to be established by ordinance:
The city council shall establish by ordinance the salary or compensation of every administrative officer, but after the first municipal year no ordinance changing any such salary or compensation shall take effect until the municipal year succeeding that in which the ordinance is passed.
It would appear this did not happen and I also believe Mayor DeMaria said only PART of her salary is coming from the line item for City Solicitor’s Office and the remainder, from the Mayor's staff account. One thing people are overlooking here, is that personnel has a fund built into their budget that is used for temporary hire, emergency hires, and other unanticipated labor costs and this is most likely what Mayor DeMaria is using right now to keep his heavy payroll afloat.
I would say that the Mayor violated the charter only IF the legal language says that the City Solicitor's salary must come from the department line item for that position and that also must be the sole source of income from city employment for that same person.
But, that language is not there. I assume that was the stage Mayor DeMaria was trying to set with his "only three dollars more per hour" than the previous solicitor. He will justify the increase by saying it doesn't violate the charter because they aren't paying the City Solicitor more money, Mayor DeMaria will claim that the duties and proportion of salary for Ms. Deveney does not exceed the ordinance/charter and that any additional monies she is making is a result of her added role as COS. Bet on it.
|
Edited by - Tails on 05/01/2008 8:00:25 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 9:38:33 PM
|
I have a question. Is it true that Ms. Deveney can make no more than the maximum allowable amount for city solicitor under the FY08 guidelines until July 1? Someone mentioned this to me today.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2008 : 10:57:27 PM
|
Massdee,
I think that your question would be a very "black and white" interpretation of the section of the charter that is contained in Tail's post. I believe that the administration would argue that the present situation is not "black and white". Remember, not a lawyer.
Additional information from the the city ordinances:
Sec. 7-164. Amounts for Administrative Officers.
In conformity with the provisions of section 43 of the Charter, the salaries of the Administrative officers of the City are established by ordinance and are on file in the City Clerks office. (C0181-06)
And a copy of the ordinance that was passed last year to set the minimum and maximum for the three Administrative officers:
Administrative Affairs Committee Report on Ordinance that In accordance with Chapter 7, Section 7-164 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Everett, to adjust compensation for the following Administrative Officers effective July 1, 2007: City Auditor minimum $74,819.51, maximum $85,856.04; City Solicitor minimum $70,249.12 maximum $80,613.57; and City Treasurer minimum $65,888.68 maximum $75,696.58; with favorable recommendation. |
Edited by - tetris on 05/02/2008 07:58:49 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 07:19:32 AM
|
| So... that's the reason for the split pay, to get around the ordinance and not cost savings like the Mayor said? I still dont see the cost savings with four lawyers and a paralegal. My opinion is the latest hire was an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer and without rehashing, we all know where that’s going. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2008
