| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2008 : 10:21:19 PM
|
Item 2 is interesting, indeed.
The Mayor's Chief of Staff would be the new City Solicitor, keeping both jobs. So, if the BOA or CC want a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on something the Mayor is doing, how will the Mayor's Chief of Staff/City Solicitor remain unbiased. I would hate to see some of the issues that the boards dealt with last year with City Solicitor Krychavic (sp)pop up again. |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 08:04:00 AM
|
Honestly, I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised by Item #2. I know that some people had thought that Mr. Rossi was the obvious choice for the position. But, once I found out a little bit about his practice, i.e., the fact that he is running two separate offices alone, I knew that it would be unlikely that he would give that up to become city solicitor. He could have attempted to do both but I think that would have been a real bone of contention. Once I found out that Ms. Deveney was a lawyer, it made much more sense that she was the candidate for the city solicitor's job all along. It didn't make sense to me that someone would give up a lawyer's job in a state agency to take a chief of state position in a city unless they wanted to get out of the legal profession altogether. I know someone who has done that but that didn't seem to be the case with what we have seen from Ms. Deveney so far. It seemed that she had a hand in at some of the city's legal issues from Day 1. The fact that the mayor referred to her as chief legal council at the Chamber of Commerce's new administration get-together gave it away as well.
When it comes down to a vote, I would guess that there will be very little opposition to this move. Given the "play nice" attitude that seems to permeate City Hall these days (as opposed to the last few years), it would be "politically incorrect" to vote against this appointment. However, what I would hope is that we would see a full and robust discussion of any and all issues that may surround this appointment before it is approved.
Massdee already brought up the most obvious one. As has been discussed to death lately, a mayor should be allowed to appoint whoever they want to administration as long as they are qualified. The city solicitor's position is a little different though. We need a city solicitor that represents the interests of the entire city, not just the mayor's. The situation from last year can not occur again. In order to prevent this from happening, all that is needed is a public statement from the mayor that it will not happen. If it does happen, then it will be possible to call him on the carpet publicly and let him suffer consequences.
It is not unusual for businesses in the public sector to organize themselves around the strengths of their employees. The real trick when you do this is not to find yourself caught short when a key employee moves on. If Ms. Deveney ever decided to do this or when the DeMaria administration comes to an end, the city can't be left in a bad situation. There are probably very few people who would want or are qualified to handle these dual positions. If the next city solicitor does not also follow this mold, the city can't be put left holding the bag. One example of how this could happen is the compensation paid to the city solicitor. Every year, the city council votes on a modification (to an ordinance I believe but I've never actually found it) to the minimum and maximum amount that can be paid to three key city employees, the solicitor, the treasurer and the auditor. I would assume that there would have to be a major change to the solicitor's range this year in order to accommodate this move. Some discussion of this issue is warranted to determine that we don't get locked to something that will bite the city further on down the road.
A move like this puts a lot of eggs in one basket. On the Chamber Chatter show, the mayor mentioned that Ms. Deveney already puts in a lot of hours. Can she handle any more? It deserves some discussion. However, it is my feeling that it is likely that probably the reason for so many hours is that the city is already operating in this mode and has so from Day 1.
We have a member on the BOA who has the unique perspective of actually currently working in a city solicitor's office. Mr. Van Campen is the assistant city solicitor in Melrose. Even though Melrose isn't Everett, I would like to hear his opinion about someone who is city solicitor being able to handle an additional job within the administration.
There may be other issues as well but these are the ones that I came up with. I just hope that our legislators will be willing to ask the needed questions before voting on this appointment. |
Edited by - tetris on 04/25/2008 08:11:06 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 09:16:03 AM
|
The idea of consolidating Department Heads as a cost saving tool, in theory, sounds great. I even think it would work for some departments. I am not sure combing the Mayor's Chief of Staff as our City Solicitor is one area I would be comfortable combining.
My opinion has nothing to do with Mayor DeMaria or Ms Deveney. It has everything to do with the previous City Solicitor. Remember last year during the Budget Hearings, The Budget Committee asked the City Solicitor for a legal opinion, and he responded with, "here's my opinion, I agree with the Mayor."
I personally would like to see someone totally independent of any Administration as our City Solicitor. We need a City Solicitor that we can "all" have the confidence in that any legal opinion given is in the best interest of the City.
I hope the BOA thinks this one through carefully and asks the appropriate questions to ensure a repeat of last year never happens again. This appointment has the potential to come back and bite them on the butt. |
Edited by - massdee on 04/25/2008 09:21:49 AM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 09:44:31 AM
|
| If there was a concern about bias, couldn't the city council defer to another lawyer in the solicitors office when looking for a legal opinion on something the Mayor is doing? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 10:02:20 AM
|
| I am not comfortable paying a City Solicitor to do a job and then have to go to an assistant to get an unbiased opinion. I think the City Solicitor should be unbiased to begin with. It is all of the attorneys job to represent the best interest of the city. The BOA and the CC should not have to pick and choose which attorney to get a legal opinion from. They should have confidence in the entire legal department for any issue. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 11:01:27 AM
|
I'd like to think that consistency and harmony would be a goal of the solicitor's office. It would kind of be like a child that goes from parent to parent looking for the answer that they want.
I still stand behind my proposal. This mayor (and all subsequent mayors for that matter) should publicly state that their nominee for city solicitor will be serving the needs of all of the people of the city and not just those of the mayor's office. With the Mayor DeMaria having been on the other side of this issue last year, I'd believe that he would fully understand where this coming from and know that it is not aimed specifically at him. Just a simple discussion with no acrimony. It's just a very sore issue right now because the prior city solicitor was so blatant about it. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 3:55:22 PM
|
Good Point Tetris...it is definitely important for everyone in the solicitors office to be reading from the same playbook (or law book as the case may be). When the CC is seeking guidance from the solicitors office, aren't they really asking "what does the law say about this"?
If that's the case, I would think that any solicitor would be providing fact based on law rather than personal opinion. Since the solicitor is providing fact rather than opinion does that not close the door on any opportunity for bias?
That said...I hope the BoA grills the Mayor on this item. It's important for the people watching to understand why this may or may not be good for the city. |
Edited by - just wondering on 04/25/2008 3:56:49 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 4:19:17 PM
|
| Doesn't some of it comes down to interpretation? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 4:24:46 PM
|
| I was thinking that massdee....but that same concern exists even if the positions are seperate. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 04/25/2008 : 4:27:00 PM
|
| Going to an assistant in a solicitors office rather than going to the city solicitor themselves is like going behind a bosses back or going over their heads. That rarely happens and would be very unlikely in this situation. That's what the solicitors getting the big bucks for. I cant see doing two positions, something is going to lack or there will be a created position in the future after....the solicitor gets her justification increase in salary. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2008 : 6:08:20 PM
|
| I do not want to see our solicitor's opinion or interpretation biased one way or the other. I don't feel it's a good thing for the city to have someone on the Mayor's personal staff also be the City Solicitor. This has nothing to do with our present Mayor, I would feel this same way no matter who our Mayor is. |
Edited by - massdee on 04/25/2008 6:10:54 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 08:34:52 AM
|
Other items on this week's agenda that could be of some interest:
Item #6 - If something unexpected happens (we are living in precarious financial times), what is the city's liability in regards to this loan?
Item #7 - The wording of this item is interesting; it tries to make it seem like the school department is "giving" something to the city. Since there is a no school committee meeting this week, I would hope that someone of responsibility from the school department is available to appear on this item. I'd also like the auditor to be available to be able to speak on it as well. The intent of this item is to avoid a situation like last year where the school department had to turn unspent Medicad reimbursement money over to the city on June 30 only to ask for it back (and receive it) later. At the present time, there is enough money in free cash to accomodate this request. But are there other things that this money will be needed for between now and the end of FY08 in June? Even if there are no issues this year, how will this request be handled in years the money isn't available? Are there other possibilities that could be explored, i.e., transferring the school department's share of the Medicad reimbursement money to a revolving fund so that it wouldn't have to be returned to the city at the end of the fiscal year?
Item 20 - I still don't get it.
Item 25 - I'll be interested to see what the state representative's and state senator's responses are on this item.
Item 30 - An interesting idea that deserves some serious consideration.
Item 32 - Glad to see this issue followed thru on. It'll either force the streets to be repaired properly after they are opened up or generate some cash so that the city can have it done themselves. This is a big part of why so many streets are in such bad repair. |
|
|
|
Hammer
Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 4:43:52 PM
|
| I for one don't want FFF to get anymore money. I never believed he spends what he has on the kids. Before BOA and CC give in to him I would like to see where he will spend the money and will he pay back the money the state he said he took in using school people for his personnal maintanace Dept. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 11:41:23 AM
|
| Hiring the Executive Assistant as City Solicitor is wrong. You will never get an unbiased opinion and if you thought last year was bad, this is much worse because we now have to deal with the legalities of Thibeault and you know they want to close this book awful quick. The City Solicitor is different from other positions, they are suppose to work for the City of Everett, not the Mayor. I'm sure she's great at it and if she was JUST city solicitor, I would not have a problem with that and I also don't like the way the wording was thrown in "for cost effective" My questions are, will her salary increase? ( I'm sure it will) and now because we had an acting city solicitor I'm sure her salary increased over this procrastination and the Mayor already said he would name her deputy. Since the Mayor brought it up, where is the cost saving here? Colleen should have just become city solicitor. |
|
|
|
Hammer
Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 1:22:12 PM
|
| I agree with tails. I see a person ready to do the mayors bidding and questions answered the way the mayor wants. I do think it is wrong. When its an important postion only one person should be in it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2008
