| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 5:13:55 PM
|
| How predictable…. |
 |
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 5:39:44 PM
|
| as predictable as rvc's stump speech....he should form a committee, submit his papers and keep the speeches out of the council chambers |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 6:16:24 PM
|
I have some issues with Cousin Rossi last night. He said, in a round about way (that’s what lawyers do) that the enclosure never took place because David Ragucci wanted them to move. “David” wanted them to move from a contaminated site and contaminate another?? Something’s not jiving there and when he was asked to reiterate what he said by Chuck DePerri…… he answered Chuck DiPerri…… but repeated the question. That was the only time he did that. That was because I feel he was not speaking “total truths”
Again, why would Kay Lazar tell him there are a lot of misconceptions concerning lower Broadway? How would Kay know and not the city council?
Another point is, when Mayor DeMaria blasted in, so unprofessionally, he was steaming over the fact that Alderman’s Van Campen and DiPerri were letting the people know what was going on. He said talk to him, not on TV.
Hello!!!! Is anyone home Mr. Mayor, that’s our money, not Mr. Clayton’s or Erin’s for that matter. They don’t live in Everett and we as taxpayers have that right and why are they trying to keep this secret? Would it be because there were so many mistakes in the budget? They cut from the budget items they were not supposed to and other line items had all zeros??
Speaking of speeches, since when does any Mayor have the right to come up to the podium uninvited with his temper and speech like it’s a state of the union address? Then he says to the alderman they are sitting on a 3.5 million dollar check from Thibeault when two weeks ago he knew nothing. (His words) He didn’t even know who owned the city yards and all within two weeks we are about to have a 3.5 million dollar check for a facility that does not belong there? Not jiving, not jiving AT ALL.
|
Edited by - Tails on 06/10/2008 6:27:20 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 7:53:49 PM
|
Although I tried to treat it with some humor last night, I really feel divided about a lot of what went on at the BOA meeting last night. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around all of it. I stayed up last night to watch most of the replay and I'm watching it again as I type this. There's so much to comment on, it's hard to figure out where to start. I'm going to leave Wood Waste out of it for now. We'll wait another day or so to see if there's any follow thru on that.
Since the next item up was the appointment of Mr. Carlisle as the procurement officer, let's try that one. Let's start at the beginning. The following is an excerpt from the city charter:
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.
Could it be any more black and white than that? If the aldermen confirmed the appointment on May 27th, they would have broken the law. And that's O.K. with the mayor? Why, because it wasn't him breaking the law? That's what he means by working with the mayor? And just remember that the May 27th meeting was held on a Tuesday because of the holiday, getting them one day closer to a week than it probably would have been otherwise. Bottom line, I'd like all of the members of our city government, elected or appointed, to uphold the laws that apply to them whether they agree with them or not.
But let's not let the BOA of the hook on this one either. Unfortunately, my recall of all of the events surrounding the purchasing agent's appointment item at the BOA on May 27th is a little fuzzy at this point. However, there was definitely some discussion on the item. If you read the law as very black and white, you could make a case that since the item was discussed other than just disposed of, the BOA "acted" on the appointment. That was wrong. However, since they did correct themselves and nobody was really harmed by it, I don't really see how they could or should be penalized for it.
During the discussion that took place on May 27th, I believe that the need for the special employee designation came up for Mr. Carlisle came up. However, I believe that Ms. Deveney gave the BOA her opinion that it wasn't needed in Mr. Carlisle's case. If I'm wrong about any of that I apologize as the memories are fuzzy. I can understand the Mayor's frustration that a state ethics ruling on Mr. Carlisle wasn't asked for by the BOA at that time. However, what he needs to realize is that the discussion should have never even taken place then. If he wants to be mad at something that the BOA did, it should be that. Of course, it never would have happened if the proper notification had been given to the BOA. So who should he really be mad at?
One thing that came up in the subtext of the discussion last night was that if Mr. Carlisle was not appointed Purchasing Agent, the Budget Office and the Procurement Offices probably would not be combined. This to me is an admission that the offices are being combined not necessarily because it makes sense but because of the people that will be heading them. That's all well and good as it should allow you to take advantage of a particular person's strengths. But what happens when that person is no longer there? Will you be able to keep the combination in place? Might this be a good short term decision that the city ends up paying for in the long run? We've seen too many of those in the City's recent history.
One last thought on the purchasing agent issue. I thought that it was ironic that after the Mayor accused Alderman DiPerri of not wanting to work with the administration, Alderman DiPerri was the one that came up with the motion on the issue that the Mayor liked the best, outside of favorable action with no restrictions. I'd certainly call that working with and for the administration.
I need a break but I'll try to get to some thought on the budget issue later tonight. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2008 : 8:22:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by just wondering
as predictable as rvc's stump speech....he should form a committee, submit his papers and keep the speeches out of the council chambers
Call it what you want but for my money, he made a lot of sense. As far as I'm concerned, it's too bad the rest of them aren't as ready to stand up for the taxpayers as VanCampen is. The others make a lot of noise, but it's white noise. They use it to cover the fact that they're as inclined as this mayor (and the last) to spend every penny they can get their hands on.
The fact is, the well is running dry. Our taxes have increased by ridiculous amounts the past two years and it appears we'll be seeing another hefty increase. Salary increases where I work have not exceeded 4% for the five years I've been there. Speaking with friends and family, this seems to be pretty standard. Our incomes are not keeping up with the tax increases (or gas, utilities, food, whatever) which means we take from somewhere else. Maybe it's more meatless meals, or lower thermostats, but somewhere we've all had to make cuts to pay those higher taxes.
There's no place left to cut.......... We need a break! I'm ready to support whoever is going to start paying attention to my needs instead of their own and that of their friends! |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 8:43:56 PM
|
The Mayor says the council is not working with him? How about the Mayor working with the council and the people?
Anything the city council does will be viewed as a campaign move to run for Mayor. In my opinion, RVC was more restrained than he had to be. Not only was that his right to objection to the budget, he has a moral and ethical responsibility to the voters to do so if he feels/felt the budget is inappropriate.
It was Mayor DeMaria who was out of line. Isn't it interesting that the number one topic, Woodwaste, was not important enough for the Mayor to leave his golfing to be there and answer questions about Woodwaste?
However, the minute anyone questioned the Mayor on the budget, he had to rush to city hall in shorts and polo shirt to set the record straight. Again ….the Woodwaste issue was not enough to drag him from the golf course, but word got to him that the budget was bloated and full of "gray areas" by Van Campen…. and that was enough for him to come blasting in and making accusations of "disrespect."
No one was “throwing hand grenades” like he stated.
We also heard from Attorney Rossi and from the Mayor himself that he was "In favor of the Woodwaste move, from the beginning.” He NEVER said that during his campaign…… so now he can say that he "didn't lie" because he never claimed knowledge of any "plans" in the first place, but we now know different, don't we?
He is in trouble and he knows it. Mayor DeMaria hoped to move all these deals forward, making the “saving the city some money” and cover his bloated payroll at the bottom line. But, it has backfired on him. The sale of the City Yards, settling of the lawsuit, and the sale of the Devens School were supposed to offset and justify his "consolidation of departments" and of course the department heads at a higher rate of pay. He couldn't cover his costly hires up fast enough with some quick budget numbers and keeps running into state ethics law issues over and over.
Now he tries to cover it up by claiming he is the victim. If it wasn’t Robert Van Campen it would have been someone else.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 10:19:26 PM
|
The budget issue is the one that I'm most torn on. I believe that Alderman Van Campen had every right to get up and make the speech that he did (for the most part) on the budget. I'm not sure that last night's meeting was the place for it though. I think that a speech like that should have occurred closer to the beginning of the budget process. But I understand why it didn't happen then either. After last year's budget fiasco, I believe that it was important to the city council for this year's budget hearings to go smoothly. Since Alderman Van Campen was the chairman of the budget committee, he had a vested interest in seeing that the hearings went smoothly. The situation makes my head spin.
If Mr. Van Campen truly had this kind of problem with the budget, he should have considered stepping down the chairmanship of the budget committee. There are other people who could have handled that responsibility just as well. That would have freed him up to be a more active participant in the budget process. If he had cuts that he would have like to have seen, he could have proposed them. If they didn't pass, they didn't pass. I agree that it is easier for a mayor to make the tough cuts to a budget than it is to get the necessary votes from the city council. But if you don't try you'll never know. I'm not sure how Mr. Van Campen reconciles his final vote on the budget at the hearings with his vote last night either.
Even though I thought he had every right to make the speech, I can't say that Mr. Van Campen's speech last night didn't sound like a stump speech. In fact, Mr. Van Campen's tactics last night reminded me very much of the tactics another recent candidate of the mayor. It's easy to sit there and make claims that more could have been done with the budget but, if you didn't even try to do that, you shouldn't make the claims. His vote against the budget was largely symbolic much like the other recent candidate that I mentioned before. Actions like those did little to build up the credibility of that other candidate; I don't believe that they will necessarily help Mr. Van Campen either and could hurt him by association. If he is really going to be running for mayor, the only positive thing that he has going for him is that he has another budget cycle ahead of him where he can make sure that the rubber hits the road. Then again, the same can be said of Mayor DeMaria.
The one part of Mr. Van Campen's speech that I didn't totally agree with was the comparison of the Everett's budget to Malden. I think that you can compare the two but a comparison of their bottom lines is only a beginning, not an ending. You have to understand how both get to their bottom line figures. The DeMaria administration can not be blamed for all of the sins of the city's past, only their own.
Another reason that I believe that Mr. Van Campen's speech should have been made at one of the budget sessions is that the mayor should have been present when the speech was made and the mayor was requested to attend all of those sessions. Of course, I believe that the mayor should also be available at regular sessions as much as he can as well. Last year, during the budget crisis, Mayor Hanlon was roundly critized when he spent the day at Foxwoods rather than be available for a regular meeting of the BOA. One of his main critics for that? Carlo DeMaria. Last night's situation was a little bit different but somewhat comparable.
I doubt that there was little in Mr. Van Campen's speech that should have surprised the Mayor. As such, I feel that the mayor should been in a better position to defend himself. I realize that the Mayor may have not been feeling his best. As a fellow "big guy", I know how a day in the sun and the heat can wreak havoc on you. But, the mayor was all over the place last night trying to defend himself. A way that this could have been avoided is something that I have been preaching for a couple of weeks. A better job of presenting the facts of the budget should have been done when the budget was first released. The defense provided by the budget director last night was, at times, laughable. He was quoting budget analysis that was done by the local papers as a credible source? And the words "press release" were uttered at almost the same time? Are we supposed to buy any of this? From what we've seen so far from him, I believe that the Mayor may find that Mr. Carlisle to be more of a liability to him than an asset.
I'm sure that I'm probably missing some other points about the budget that I wanted to write about. I'm not sure anybody is really interested that I couldn't get the budget numbers that I've been maintaining to jive with what was voted on last night. I'm close and I'm sure that it has to do with amendments that were made to the budget by the administration that weren't provided to the general public. But, I'll stop for now. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2008 : 5:21:28 PM
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008, 7:00 PM, PETER J. MCCARREN MEMORIAL CHAMBERS, EVERETT, MA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
A0223-08
To all parties interested in the petition from the National Grid Company for the relocation of one (1) SO Pole #1463 on Elm Street.
2.
A0224-08
To all parties interested in the petition from the National Grid Company for the installation of one (1) SO 45 foot wood distribution pole #3551-1 to connect to existing underground conduit on Cherry Street.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIS HONOR THE MAYOR
3.
A0227-08 Order/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
Subject to confirmation by the Honorable Board of Aldermen, I hereby appoint Colleen Mejia as the City Solicitor until March 2010.
4.
A0230-08 Order/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
To allow the contract for senior citizen transportation be ratified for a period of four years in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30B, Section 12 (B).
5.
A0231-08 Order/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
Authorizing the use of revolving funds by the specified boards, commissions, departments and offices.
PAPERS FROM THE COMMON COUNCIL
6.
C0138-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
That a certain portion of Fourth Street, an accepted way in the City of Everett, more particularly described and on a plan attached to order, be discontinued as a public way. (Referred to the Board of Aldermen to refer to the Planning Board for their recommendation on the matter).
7.
C0142-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To transfer the amount of $60,000.00 from City Services Salaries Account to City Services General Operating Expenses Electricity Account to pay for higher than projected utilities costs. (Passed sent up for concurrence).
8.
C0143-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To transfer the amount of $8,500.00 from the City Services Salaries Account to the City Services General Operating Expenses-Stadium Commission Account for improvements to the Veterans Stadium. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
9.
C0144-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To accept the donation of $50.00 from the Balkan BA Club, 36 Ferry Street, to the Veterans Services Department-Gift Account. (Passed sent up for concurrence).
10.
C0145-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To accept the donation of $100.00 from the Vietnam Veterans Association and Iron Workers Local 7 to the Everett Department of Veterans Services to be deposited into the Donation/Gift Account. (Passed sent up for concurrence).
11.
C0146-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To accept the donation of $200.00 from the Everett Emblem Club to the Mayor's Office Of Human Services-Emergency Services Account for Everett Residents.(Passed sent up for concurrence)
12.
C0147-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To accept the donation of $250.00 from the Everett Cooperative Bank to the Everett Police Department. This donation will be used by the Everett Police Department for the Third Annual Night Out. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
13.
C0148-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To transfer the amount of $55,000.00 from the City Services Solid Waste Account to the City Services General Operating Expenses-Facilities and Grounds Account to improve tot lots by adding new mulch. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
14.
C0149-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To transfer the amount of $102,000.00 from the City Services Solid Waste Highway Account to the following City Services Accounts with the amounts so specified: Construction/Repairs $19,000.00, Vehicle Equipment Repairs $50,000.00, Gasoline/Diesel & Oil $13,000.00 and Cement, Stove & Asphalt $20,000.00. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
15.
C0150-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To reduce the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriation for the Parking Clerk by a total of $130,000 of the certified balance that now stands at over $600,000. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
16.
C0162-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To transfer from available funds in the Cemetery Lots and Graves Account 82-3711-00 (Sale of Lots and Graves Fund) the existing available interest amount of $115,000 to the Fiscal Year 2009 City Services Capital Outlay Account for Cemetery Equipment - New Vehicles Account 01-490-50-490-5876. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
17.
C0163-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To authorize the City of Everett to adopt the residential property tax exemption of 20% of the assessed value for owner occupied class one residential properties for Fiscal Year 2009. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
18.
C0164-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To accept donations totaling $2,500.00 to be deposited into the Fiscal Year 2009 City Beautification Program Account. (Passed sent up for concurrence)
19.
C0165-08 Order/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno, as President
To borrow $250,000.00 from Mass Waste Water Pollution Abatement Trust through the Department of Environmental Protection.(Passed sent up for concurrence)
20.
C0101-08 Ordinance/s/Councilor Anthony F. Ranieri
To place a service zone sign in front of 410-422 Main Street, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Ordained sent up for ordainment)
21.
C0102-08 Ordinance/s/Councilor Lorrie Bruno
To repeal the no parking ordinance on Pleasant Street, Monday through Friday, 8am to 3pm, as no longer needed. (Ordained sent up for ordainment)
PETITIONS AND LICENSES
22.
A0228-08 Petition
Petition for Lodging House License from Stephen State Smith D/B/A The Prescott Hotel at 36 Church Street.
23.
A0229-08 Petition
Petition for Bingo License for 9/3/08, 4pm to 10pm, from Everett Eagles Association at the Ed Connolly Center, 90 Chelsea Street
COMMUNICATIONS
24.
A0225-08 Communication
Response from Esquire Anthony Rossi with regards to solution to odor issue on said Wood Waste property. (Copy in mailboxes)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
25.
A0098-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Resolution offered by Alderman Robert Van Campen-That the owner of Dan's Redemption Center appear at the next License Committee meeting to discuss several issues concerning the operation of the redemption center on Hancock Street.
26.
A0209-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Petition for Precious Metals Processor License from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Street at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Office.
27.
A0210-08 Committee Report
Committee on Licenses Report on Petition for Junk Dealer License from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Street at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Offices.
28.
A0211-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Petition for Non-Ferrous Metal Processor from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Street at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Offices.
29.
A0212-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Petition for Second Hand Dealer License from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Place at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Offices.
30.
A0213-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Petition for Antique Dealer from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Street at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Office.
31.
A0214-08 Committee Report
License Committee Report on Petition for Precious Metals Dealer License from Wentworth Precious Metals, LLC at 0 Terminal Street at Second Street. In good standing with Building, Engineering and Collector's Offices.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
32.
A0196-08 Petition/s/Alderman L. Charles DiPerri
That Deb Fallon from Portal of Hope appear this meeting to discuss violence prevention week. (Postponed from 5/27 to this meeting)
33.
A0172-08 Petition
License Committee Report on Petition for Lodging House License from Caritas Communities D/B/A The Bill Moore House at 76 Norwood Street. (6/9-Referred to Department Head of the Assessors Office to compare with other Caritas Property located on Hancock Street, Board recommends $10,000 for PILOT.)
34.
A0198-08 Resolution/s/Alderman Jason Marcus
That His Honor The Mayor appear this meeting with an update on Woodwaste.
35.
A0215-08 Order/s/Alderman Robert J. Van Campen, as President
That the Board of Aldermen hereby suspends their meetings for the month of July and August except for Monday, August 25, 2008.
NEW BUSINESS
36.
A0221-08 Resolution/s/Alderman Jason Marcus
Law Department look into possibility of the City charging money for the rental of boxes placed on City of Everett sidewalks from the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, U.S. News, et cetera.
37.
A0222-08 Resolution/s/Alderman Wayne Matewsky
DCR do the appropriate clean-up work in the sidewalk areas of Richie's Slush all the way down to the Stop and Shop on the Revere Beach Parkway for pedestrian safety, which also includes the removal of a metal post which had been previously requested to be removed.
38.
A0226-08 Resolution/s/Alderman Robert Van Campen and Councilor Rosa DiFlorio
That the meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, scheduled for June 24, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., be broadcast live by Everett Community Television.
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2008 : 5:49:05 PM
|
#3 Does the BOA have to un-approve Ms Deveney in order to appoint Ms Majia?
#5 Is this always done. I don't remember.
#6 Let's see if the BOA understands this better than the CC.
#17 I'm keeping my mouth shut on this one. I'm definitely in the minority.
#22 Is that a Freudian slip, "Stephen State Smith?"
#24 I hope they have this read aloud so the viewers will know what the odor solution is.
#34 Can't wait for this one! Spin, Spin, Spin, (just my opinion)
#36 Does Jason understand, any increased costs will be passed on to the consumer?
#37 Why am I not surprised that this hasn't been done.
#38 Love this one. I hope it passes.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 09:43:35 AM
|
This city solicitor fiasco needs to be explained in detail. 4 1/2 lawyers up there and they can’t even get the appointment correct. Not one of them said "Your doing this wrong" I’m sorry, but with the salaries they are receiving, this should never have been an issue. We deserve to know what will happen with these salaries (that we are paying) that are not complied with by ordinance. We are the ones along with the city council that is suppose to trust these lawyers and we are the ones (along with the city council) that has to do all the work for them.
As for 6, 24 + 34 can’t they take them collectively? The BOA needs to send the right message and do the right thing for the people and the small business owners. Carlo wants Thibeault to buy them out. That’s wrong. That gives Thibeault more control and the BOA knows that 4th street is just the beginning and to just to stick the knife in Ruth. It’s time to stop playing his games and let him know he is not the one with the power, it is the people, and his tactics are not acceptable.
Item 15 while I understand this is all “in-house” and really does not make much of a difference, the fact is you have to work with what is in front of you and not rely on borrowing so much. The economy is in the mess it’s in because of all the borrowing and credit cards.
Item 24 defiantly needs to be read for the people and they need to announce the decision in Newburyport and say what the next step will be, when the trucks will start to haul waste out there.
I don’t know what the problem is with Dan’s Redemption Center. It’s on the calendar a lot and if their not doing the right thing, start pulling the license.
Refresh my memory on item 38. What’s that finance meeting about?
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2008 : 03:14:17 AM
|
Tails,
A number of items (transfers from free cash, capital expenses and borrowing money to fix the Parlin) from last week's Common Council agenda were referred to the finance committee rather than just being voted up or down. Introducing these items so late in the fiscal year and before the Council packs it in for most of the summer smacks of tactics used by prior administrations to back the Council into a corner to force them to make a quick decision on important items without being able to properly evaluate them. The mayor noted that this was something that he never really liked when he served on the City Council.
Although it might have been hard to avoid some of this given the circumstances, it certainly wasn't necessary for all of it. For example, the school department has pretty much planned to replace the windows at the Parlin this summer for some time now. Why wait until now to address the funding for that? Might be part of a bigger project that requires more funding but how does it get done this summer if it wasn't done before now? How does this go out to bid? I'm a lot wary about this after some of the things I heard Monday night.
The issues to be discussed at this finance committee meeting will have a long-term impact on the financial well-being of the city going forward. I was glad to see items referred to finance because they do deserve discussion and not just to be acted upon because they have to be. The only thing that I didn't like about this decision is that we would not be privy to all of the discussions surrounding these issues. I think that item #38 is a great idea. Let's hope that it gets voted up and followed thru upon. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/21/2008 03:21:32 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2008 : 04:04:32 AM
|
Massdee,
I believe that the new appointment just supercedes the old appointment; no different, really, than when administrations change. I don't know this for certain but Ms. Deveney's appointment may have lapsed as well. Section 2-31 (b) of the city ordinances requires that an appointee file an oath of office with the city clerk within 30 days of the appointment or the office becomes vacant and the appointment is voided. The BOA passed this appointment without any conditions so the clock should have starting ticking then. However, since other circumstances didn't really allow the appointment to ever really begin, I would doubt an oath of office could have been filed. The original appointment should have really been passed with the condition of the state ethics ruling; that way, they could have avoided any problems as the clock on the appointment would not have started ticking until they received the ruling and dealt with the ramifications of it. The alderman did it the way that they did apparently to be co-operative; Ms. Deveney could have and should have offered them better advice on the matter. Another example of why it is a bad idea for lawyers to be involved in matters that concern themselves. This new appointment makes all of that potential mess a mute point though.
The use of revolving funds has to be voted on every year. I believe that there are limits on amount of money that can be held in each of these funds and, sometimes, they need to be modified to reflect current conditions. I'd have to assume that there was additional information about this item given to the aldermen to supplement what appears on the agenda. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 08:20:37 AM
|
#3 - Well, it'll be interesting to hear what the administration has to share on this situation, to say the least.
#6 - I don't think that we need as much debate on the discontinuance of Fourth Street as there was last week; let it go to the planning board. It can be debated there and when it comes back to the individual boards, if necessary.
#15 - If this item is tied to the capital expense items, as the administration claimed last week, I'm not sure why the City Council didn't refer this item to the Finance Committee as well. It drives me crazy when all of the parts of an issue aren't in sync. Not sure if it can be done at this point though. Procedure may dictate that the Finance Committee agenda needs to be set by now.
#24 - Has anyone been by Wood Waste lately? Have the piles been covered? I hope that Mr. Rossi's letter contains information on that subject as well.
#34 - This item was tabled at the last BOA meeting. This was the item that Alderman Marcus originally put on the agenda that led to Atty. Rossi's appearance last meeting. I believe that the item was held over, waiting for a reply from Mr. Rossi. If one was not received, there would be a item on the agenda so that the issue could be discussed. Because the reply appears elsewhere on the agenda and any necessary discussion can take place there, I doubt this item will get much play by itself. It probably should be taken collectively with item #24 and then be disposed of properly.
#37 - Usually, I'm against "face time" issues appearing on the agenda; pick up a phone and get the problem corrected. However, the issues with the DCR are a different story. A phone call just doesn't do the trick. The last appearance by the DCR rep didn't appear to help either. It is necessary to get the state rep and the state senator to intercede on the City's behalf. On a side note, the grassy area on the Parkway behind the martial arts studio looks like it has been cut again and a better job of picking up the litter was done this time. Other areas are looking a bit scraggly though. It is hard to evaluate GTA's performance, however, without knowing exactly what areas they are responsible for, i.e., is anything going to be done about the "sumac jungles"? Is anybody at least responsible for picking up litter in those areas? GTA's responsibilities to the DCR should be documented and made available to the public. Thanks for no other "face time" type issues on the agenda though.
#38 - I read a message on the ECTV message board that they are prepared to carry this meeting live and replay it during the week as long as it passes this vote and a vote of the Finance Committee. I said in a previous post, let's vote it up. I think that it's very important that we all have a chance to see what goes on at this meeting.
Why isn't the approval of the Veteran's Service Officer on this agenda? It is required by MGL (You must be logged in to see this link.) and there isn't another regularly scheduled City Council meeting until August. There will be special sessions to handle outcome of the Finance Committee meeting; the VSO appointment could be dealt with there but why not start the process now? |
Edited by - tetris on 06/22/2008 08:21:40 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 3:34:54 PM
|
Who invited the entire Parlin School with the Mayor’s buddy as the principle? That was to put pressure on the common council to just approve the loan. That is a loan that has to be paid by the taxpayers with interest. I know the work needs to be done, but there may be other avenues that they can find in finance, and to have people yell out from the audience “just approve it” was wrong. It was also wrong to put that on the very last meeting. The Mayor also said he has “competent” contractors???? Who are they? I hope that comes out in finance.
Having it done this way shows character again and I applaud the common council for sending this to finance and not falling for those tactics.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 8:10:47 PM
|
| I just turned the meeting on a few minutes ago, at the very end Of Mr Rossi being questioned. Can someone bring me up to date on what happened? |
Edited by - massdee on 06/23/2008 8:11:16 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
BOA 2008
