| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 09:41:37 AM
|
Against my better judgment, let see if I can address some of the questions/issues that have been posed here since last night.
Though I have no personal knowledge of exactly what Alderman Van Campen was attempting to do last evening, it would be my guess that one thing that he was trying to accomplish was to build a case that the administration's prior attempts at consolidation, in his opinion, have been more geared towards paying people more money than anything else. He actually said exactly that at one point. I would say that it is a judgment call to whether or not you feel that is a valid point to include in this debate. I have no problem with including the point in the debate; however, the alderman has made this point before and if you have been following this on-going debate (and as a member of this community, you should be), I don't feel that he needed to delve into this argument as deeply as he did.
Last night, a salary increase for Ms. Barringer wasn't part of either piece introduced for this appointment. She'll probably receive one though, especially given the argument that we heard last evening, whether the money can be found within the solicitor's office or a transfer requiring city council approval is required. In no way am I implying that she is probably not entitled to one for taking on the added responsibilities. However, I also feel that this point should have addressed as a part of this process so that the board would have all of the facts presented to them at one time. However, even it was, I feel that the appointment would still have been approved.
As I stated in my prior post, I was more appalled by the fact that we got so little information about why this particular combination of positions was approved while others in the past have not been. To me, that's the thing that I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. The fact that others raise the same question tells me that I'm not on the wrong track here.
As far as Alderman Van Campen describing the issue of the same person holding the two positions as being a "conflict", I believe, especially after watching the replay, that he was only referring to that fact that a special employee designation is required for this to be possible. The use of the word "conflict" was an unfortunate choice of words. Whether or not it was intentional is something that I can not speak to.
As far as the point of Robert's Rules of Order that was brought up, I've already stated that I understand how someone could construe Alderman Van Campen's arguments as straying too far from the subject matter. But also I think that it also needs to be mentioned that the mayor went right there with him. Of course, most of that was in defending himself. But, when Jason Marcus has to put the Mayor back on track and the Mayor feels that it is necessary to make a confusing tangential statement before leaving the podium, his behavior could be considered questionable as well.
The complete text of that point of order is "In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities." I think that one could make a case that there were instances last night where the second portion of that rule was not adhered to either.
I've already stated in my prior post that I thought Alderman Van Campen was badgering the mayor. It may not seem like it to some because the mayor answered the question differently each time. But I think that was more of an effort on his part to clarify his answer or to try to find whatever answer that that Alderman Van Campen was looking for. If the mayor feels that Alderman Van Campen was acting like a lawyer then he needs to learn the phrase "Asked and answered." The mayor probably wouldn't have gotten as upset as he did had he cut off debate with Alderman Van Campen. But, is there really supposed be this kind of debate going on at these meetings anyways? |
 |
|
|
scroud
Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2008 : 09:48:50 AM
|
When two key offices are combined, such as that of the City Solicitor with the Chief of Staff or that of the Purchasing Manager and the City Solicitor, one forfeits the usual check-and-balances that naturally exist between specialized expertises. This is where the BOA has gone wrong last night. The designation of the Assistant City Solicitor as a “Special Employee” does not give the people of Everett any assurance of propriety when it comes to conducting business. In fact such a designation only gives the Mayor Carte Blanche in doing what he pleases without any concern for the rule of law. The intent of the Mayor is just that of doing away with the checks and balances. The fewer are the controls imposed upon him the better he can help his friends. I would love to see the controls that the mayor’s purchasing manager has imposed on the working relationship that exists between the city and GTA. The Antonellis practically run the City, where are the checks and balances? Where are the controls?
I would love to see the Ethics Commission’s WRITTEN opinion on the designation of “Special Employee”. I doubt very much that such an opinion sanctions conflict of interest. I also doubt that it favors the Mayor’s operational objectives over fraud protection in the award of City business. The BOA was bamboozled (except Di Perri and Van Campen ) by inferior talent whose only skill is that of imposing his will with yelling and screaming in anger…but are you surprised? “Anger resteth in the bosoms of fools” it is written in the Bible.
"I'd rather be scroud than screwed" |
|
|
|
clean it up
Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 10:14:45 AM
|
| Tetris, masterfully disguised as a balanced review of the events at last night BOA your parental protective stance of the mayor is all but too visible. I applaud you, without being facetious for it is not easy to maintain a balanced view of political matters. I am as incorrigible and obstinate in my views as the next person. The question is this, however. Do the citizens of this City want a CEO with as little control of his emotions as an eighty year old has of his/her bladder?? I believe that one of the key characteristics of leadership is that of being able to stay “Cool” under any circumstance regardless of the degree of temptation. As we all know, the appearance is that when you “loose it” you also become wrong and weak. |
|
|
|
Cam
Member
82 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 10:21:56 AM
|
It appears that the mayor has succeeded in getting Marcus, Matewsky, Sachetta and Nuzzo squarely in his camp.
Marchese I would say is on the fence and could go either way.
DiPerri and VanCampen are paying attention to the issues.
It reminds me of Fred and the School Committee, give jobs to people, their families and their friends in order to keep them in line.
This strategy has served Fred well over the years and will probably work for Carlo. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 10:40:37 AM
|
Clean It Up,
Believe me, if you've read a lot of my stuff, you would know that I'm not particularly a fan of the mayor's. I've actually been accused of having an ax to grind against him, which I don't. You are right though, I did not get into the issue of the mayor losing his cool in my last post.
In that post, I was trying to point out some of the shades to gray in last night's encounter; I think that the mayor's outburst fell outside of that. I believe what you think about that is going to be more determined by your personal feelings on the mayor than anything else. For the record, I at least lean to your side of the fence on the issue, if not something more.
I do pride myself on at least trying to be fair or at least acknowledging my prejudices when I know that I have them (see Mayor Hanlon last year.) Thank you for pointing out that I did leave an important point out of my commentary though. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 10:44:48 AM
|
Sachetta........grandson got a job in city services. Nuzzo...........wants code enforcement which he will suck at because he's not doing a damn thing about Wood Waste in HIS ward. (Another phone call the state ethics????) Marcus....Matt Laidlaw. Matewsky was promised something, he is kissing the mayor's butt lately and he is pushing Tom Messina to run in ward 2 for councilor. DiPerri and Van Campen can not be bought. Marchese.......I don't know. I thought he has the go-nads but it seems he is not saying anything anymore.
And don't tell me the Mayor was "Oh so shocked" over Pedulla. He could have won an academy award last night. Do you people really want a Board of Alderman that is so easily swayed and bought. With the exception of DiPerri and Van Campen, they need to go. WE pay their salaries. They work for US. NOT Wood Waste and GTA. |
Edited by - Tails on 10/28/2008 10:47:24 AM |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 11:23:06 AM
|
I believe the purpose for both the Board of Aldermen and the Common Council meetings is for the facilitation of vivid and live debate. If it doesn't happen there; then where?
As it concerns last nights meeting and the last few preceding meetings for that matter, I really get the feeling that EOB has maturity issues. He actually gets angry when asked a question. Its almost like he believes he's above it all. I particularly have noticed that when one of the more articulate members question him; he is on the offensive IMMEDIATELY.
I believe that if there were a sucinct few who were elected to represent us;they would take it seriously such as the few who DO question EOB. The true problem for him is that he has no arsenal to fall back on. He's a horrific speaker and truly no grasp on procedure or issues for that matter. This entire 'consolidation' debacle is an example of his ineptness. I, for one, respect and admire a well spoken individual...especially when they are representing me.
We need banter. We need discussion and we certainly need articulate, well thought out debate. Without it..... we get what we're all talking about....... rubber stamping and wrongdoing.
The problem here is that we have a Chief Executive that not only cant speak effectively or intellectually he is doing as he's told to do. Now, I would imagine that its a pretty uncomfortable place to be in; however, you dont think that either of the entities that own him are going to allow him to back out, do you? Thus, his frustration and humiliation.
You know what they say........."You lay in bed with dogs..........you wake up with fleas...."
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 11:28:18 AM
|
I have to tell you.... at least Pedulla was a "certified" purchasing agent. He got the axe because he wouldn't just hand things over to GTA and the other 'in bed' pals of EOB.
I've heard he was totally tough but totally fair. That is NOT a bad thing, especially when we see the results of not having someone watching the hen house.
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 11:37:17 AM
|
| I agree with you to a point but not all intelligent people are articulate. We would certainly be narrowing the field of competent candidates if we were to make our decisions on how well someone speaks and not their qualifications. Take for example, Larry DeCoste, I know he is not an elected official, he is excellent at his position but his public speaking leaves a lot to be desired. So, if he were to run for a public office would we not vote for him because of his speaking skills? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 11:46:08 AM
|
Crueller,
I get the feeling that you are referring to the following the statement when you refer to the need for debate.
"But, is there really supposed be this kind of debate going on at these meetings anyways?"
I apologize for any confusion that this statement caused. It was my intention to to have quotes around the word "debate" in this sentence. This was meant to imply that I don't think some some of the antics that have been going on at these meetings lately actually qualifies as the kind of debate that should be occuring.
I was working on that post late last night and was moving back and forth between editors to save the actual posting for this morning. The quotes got lost in this process. Bad things happen when you are tired. I missed that when I re-read it this morning before posting it; I'm admittedly my own worst proofreader. Again, sorry for the confusion and thank you for pointing that out. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 12:13:03 PM
|
Massdee
You are right. Some individuals arent as articulate as others and your example is well taken, Larry is a very intelligent individual who certainly knows his stuff.
THAT being said.... I still stand by statement. I dont believe that the manner in which EOB explains himself, his beliefs or the decisions he has made on our behalf is polished, professional or educated.
Substance always becomes evident even if the delivery is shakey(Larry, without a doubt is an excellent example of this)......I believe this case different...NEITHER is evident when EOB speaks. I truly believe that is why his anger is surfacing in the manner in which it is. When people are poor communicators and when the foundation they are basing their views on are not substantive,or, in this case... bold faced lies.... they revert to emotion, anger if you will.
" The truth will set you free ...Speaking the truth allows an individual to be confident and composed. We are not seeing this with EOB. He's angry, ill advised, and ill informed. Sad for him..... he realizes it too. This adds to his disgruntled manner and his frustration. Unfortuantely, there's not a darned thing he can do......... puppet can only do what the stringmeisters allow
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 12:25:46 PM
|
My opinion of the whole debate (if you will) was that it showed DeMaria has NO CLUE what is going on under HIS administration.
I also think the skyrocket salaries needed to be brought to the floor. The sad part of last night is with the exception of Chuck DiPerri, NONE OF THEM understood that DeMaria needs to be put on record, that not only that he has no clue, he will never challenge Freddy. I think the Mayor used the podium to his advantage once again and insulted RVC’s profession and as Alderman. I will reiterate what a phony apology. He should have been looking AT RVC, but he didn’t. All he was doing was covering cat **** with kitty litter on a marble floor. Some things just cant be covered up.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 12:35:37 PM
|
If you are posting about Carlo and his lack of articulation and understanding of issues and qualifications, then I couldn't agree with you more.
Don't get me wrong, I was in no way defending the mayor's recent outbursts. He has been behaving like a petulant child. I am now wondering how he will conduct himself at tomorrow nights public meeting. Is he going to resort to berating the general public if they happen to disagree with his position?
I hope no one mentions flowers, or we will really be in for it. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 12:36:37 PM
|
"Amen"
"Cruller DaHville"
|
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 1:24:07 PM
|
What is "EOB"?
"Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2008
