| Author |
 Topic  |
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 1:43:28 PM
|
| Can someone give me an example of how the solicitor could answer a question the way the mayor wants instead of what is best for the city? |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2008 : 2:21:08 PM
|
| If the city council did not learn their lesson last year, they never will. They were practically begging the solicitor at the time for advice and help with the budget. They asked him questions and his answer was blatantly " I side with the Mayor" Not only that, but we have a new set of issues,environmentally and health coming up and all citizens of this city is going to need the legal team's help...not help a big campaign contributor to the Mayor. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 4:39:08 PM
|
At one point he even told them to hire an attorney!
We've seen first hand what can happen if the city solicitor chooses to back the mayor 100% rather than be objective and look out for the best interests of the city as a whole. If this is approved, we're potentially in the same position we were last year and that wasn't pretty................ |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 5:11:23 PM
|
| From the point of view of objectivity, I don't see a difference between the Mayor hand picking a solicitor or the mayor's hand picked Chief of Staff being the solicitor |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 5:52:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by just wondering
From the point of view of objectivity, I don't see a difference between the Mayor hand picking a solicitor or the mayor's hand picked Chief of Staff being the solicitor
No one here would expect you to............. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 7:45:52 PM
|
| So the city saves over $30,000 by combining those positions. Very nice. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2008 : 11:48:44 PM
|
Item #2 - To me, the outcome of this was a forgone conclusion so I'm glad that at least some questions were asked before rubber stamping it. Didn't hear that the city would be saving $30,000 as a result as I wasn't able to compleletely focus on the meeting tonight; I'll have to watch that part of the meeting again to catch that part of the discussion. It's hard to believe that someone who is already in before 8 AM and stays until 9 or 10 PM can take on the added responsibility of running the city solicitor's office as well without requiring additional help. Without having found it, I would still have to assume that they will probably need to modify the ordinance that sets the maximum salary for the city solicitor sooner rather than later to be in full compliance.
Item #6 - Let's approve taking out a loan that we are don't have a definite way to pay for fully mapped out. Sure, Medford and Malden are doing it too but they have some guaranteed income from the project just over the horizon.
Item #7 - Can't believe that financial items of this scope pass with barely any questions. What is the city going to do in future years when they are not in a position to essentially advance the school department their medicad reimbursement money?
Item #10 - It's just another sad day in Everett politics when a piece like this gets killed. Currently, the city council has no binding rules on how their portion of the budget process is administered; this would have remedied that. I don't care if the conference committee needed to be all 25 members of the city council working under conference committee rules. I don't know why so many people, including the mayor, thought this was something aimed at him. I don't believe that it was and I also don't think that the problems will re-occur this year, with or without the ordinance. But what's wrong with having some defined rules? If something like this can't get passed, what hope does anything coming out of charter review ever have?
Item #27 - Has anyone else ever attended or seen a selectmen's/aldermen's meeting in another city or town? Items like this never appear on their agendas. I'm glad that RVC dope-slapped Jason around on this one. Won't stop him and others from continuing to include items like this on the agenda though. |
Edited by - tetris on 04/28/2008 11:49:40 PM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 07:18:13 AM
|
Regarding Item #2...I believe the mayor said that the Ms Devaney's salary is 91k. 77k of which is max by ordinance, the remaining 14k comes from the mayors office. They never mentioned a 30k savings. I arrived at this number by adding the salaries of the prior administrations solicitor and chief of staff then subtracting the 91k.
(updated from 17k to 14k....nice catch massdee) |
Edited by - just wondering on 04/29/2008 2:07:31 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 08:07:05 AM
|
| Who was Mayor Hanlon's Chief of Staff? Was it Ravenisi? I really can't remember. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 08:24:59 AM
|
| Thanks for the clarification and the info. I would have been able to figure that out for myself if I hadn't misplaced my copy of the budget. It's a shame that info like this doesn't get presented at the meetings or that someone doesn't ask questions about it so that the general public can be fully informed. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 08:48:54 AM
|
| I think I heard the mayor say he is taking $14K from his budget to pay the remainder of Ms Deveney's salary. What exactly were the salaries for the Chief of Staff and the City Solicitor last year? If I figured it out using the numbers posted here, (changing the $17K to 14K) I come up with $77K for the solicitor and 44K for the chief of staff. Am I correct? I don't have a copy of last years budget either. I really can't remember who Hanlon's chief of staff was. Does anyone know? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 09:30:54 AM
|
Mayor Hanlon did not have a chief of staff. He did originally at 44K but she left after a year and he hired two secretaries. I am happy that certain members of the BOA spoke out about this appointment. I'm not saying she is not qualified, however, I personally do not think you can have a Mayor's Executive Assistant and a Solicitor the same person. I'm also glad RVC spoke out about this but the fact is he voted for it. The vote should have waited until the next meeting and they received their answer. What happens now if they don't get the answer they want? Here's another golden moment in Everett...I was very proud of Chuck DiPerri too, he asked all the right questions and it's about time. I'm very interested in what State Ethics has to say about this and I hope someone other than Erin looks into it because I loved her comments about the "fair opinions" or her "judgment" for the city. (I wonder where that information came from)
As far as the conference committee goes...I am disgusted. All it was is a safeguard for the TAXPAYERS...thats all. Does the Mayor forget what happened last year or did he not pay attention? He was all for this and so was Matewsky and here's another Matewsky flip flop. What a bunch of BS from the Mayor about the language. He knew the language and it was obvious he was wining to certain members of the CC and BOA about this but not the obvious person...Alderman DiPerri. Alderman DiPerri asked one question " Would you get your budget by default if there was another deadlock" and the Mayor babbles about not knowing anything about loopholes??? Of course he gets the budget by default...it happened last year. This conference committee was only for the disagreeing areas and I think politics are being played with this one too.
There was also a mention last night that Mayor DeMaria has the luxury of a budget that was supposed to be cut 3% across the board and was not. So this means he has an easy budget and is this why he is not anticipating any problems? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 10:19:27 AM
|
Massdee,
To be honest, I wasn't sure if the numbers that they were throwing last night were real or approximations. They didn't jive for me especially when the mayor claimed that new city solicitor would only be making $3 more an hour than the prior city solicitor with a lot more responsibility. Whenever, I've been a part of or seen salary calculations, they have always been based on a fourty hour work week. But $3.00 an hour times 40 hours times 52 weeks in a year only comes out to $6,240. Maybe something else is warranted in this case but, please explain it to us in terms that we can all understand. As I said before, it is a shame that things are not explained in more detail so that the people at home get a full understanding of what is really going on.
Tails,
I could opine all day long on the killing of the budget ordinance but, it just isn't worth it. Sad to say that such a large number of our elected officials don't get it and never will. Anyone who was even thinking about running for the charter review commission next year should think long and hard about that decision after what we have seen from the BOA and CC the last two weeks, unless, of course, they are just interested in holding some type of elected position. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 10:42:03 AM
|
Tetris,
I am waiting for the meeting to re-air, so I can write down the figures that were said last night, and see if I missed something. The numbers are not jiving for me either.
As far as the budget ordinance, it was a no brainer, it should have passed. It just proves once again, that some of our elected officials are only there for themselves and not for the taxpayers of Everett. They are so afraid that their personal budget cuts wouldn't hold up with a conference committee, they are willing to take the chance of last years budget fiasco happening again sometime down the line. This was a good ordinance and it should have passed.
My opinion, we all now know which Aldermen the Mayor can count on to vote his way on issues, that would be Matewsky, Nuzzo, Marcus and Marchese. Looks to me as if the Mayor has the majority vote on the BOA. It beginning to remind me of the Freddy's School Committee. |
Edited by - massdee on 04/29/2008 10:48:13 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2008 : 11:46:09 AM
|
I guess I will have to watch the figures again too. Something is not jiving here, four lawyers and a paralegal. Didn't the paralegal campaign for Carlo? Normally, I would not have a problem with that but it was Carlo that stood up and proclaimed "The days of hiring family and friends for favors are over" Even if he planned on doing that...just don't say anything... but be a man of your word. I don't think it's necessary that the taxpayers are paying for this. Four lawyers are plenty.
That was an insult to the intelligence of the citizens of Everett to call Ms. Deveney up for a legal opinion as to the legalities of a political appointment that benefits HER both professionally and personally. That's like asking Willie Sutton if he thinks robbing banks is the right thing to do. I'm not buying this orchestration with the interviews and searches when he knew all along his new solicitor was right under his nose and what's up with the change in ordinance regarding the residency of the City Solicitor? That happened in January. Also, what was up with Brian Zaniboni standing there for this appointment and in the middle of all the hugging? I felt like I was watching the Sopranos.
Is all this to justify the 90+ salary so the Mayor can have his own personal lawyer by his side without getting blasted by the public and the budget committee. In my opinion all she will be doing is putting her signature on the bottom of documents with the remainder of her time spent helping the Mayor with the Wood Waste debacle. It's coming.......and we are going to have to live with it and we can thank him for the rest of our lives for that. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2008
