| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 1:13:20 PM
|
| I am certainly not against a non political Everett resident being appointed as the VSO as long as they are qualified. I want what is best for our Veterans. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2008 : 2:53:14 PM
|
I’m not buying this “Everett resident” excuse. The veterans need a full time VSO, let’s give them what they deserve, the most qualified, and move on. According to the Mayor’s words (yet again) the most qualified lives outside the city. So what?? Hire them since they are in the best interest for the veterans and the issue can be put to bed and let’s not make this a political. It’s not right.
Quote from the Mayor:
Gone are the days," he said, "when the city employees are hired because of their acquaintances instead of their qualifications. |
Edited by - Tails on 06/07/2008 3:00:30 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 5:20:48 PM
|
I'll put this in this thread too
Quote of the day....
"Gone are the days," he said, "when the city employees are hired because of their acquaintances instead of their qualifications."
I made a phone call today and finally got through to someone who knows what’s going on. Everett is one of the cities, that if are not in compliance after July 1, 2008, will be hearing from Secretary Kelley. That’s when sanctions against the city will begin.
I can not believe with our time of war, the arrogance and ignorance of this administration over the veterans of our military service. They should be thanking them daily with any and all possible means available and I am not speaking of just “cutting them a check” like this administration likes to point out. Some need psychological help or just another veteran or VSO to go talk to. It put some at ease knowing there was someone there. I’m not knocking Gerri Miranda, I’m sure she does a great job but she is not a veteran and not full time status in that office which both issues are illegal having more that 12,000.00 people living in the city. It was NOT the VSO that should have been let go, especially the way it was done. The Mayor made this all about him NOT the veterans and their best interest. It was the prior Mayor whose priority was to make sure that office was up to state standards and lawfully so. He hired a very competent person and you will not find one veteran with a complaint against Walter, as a matter of fact, Walter was there for them 24/7. One’s in need had his cell phone where all told to contact him day or night even if it was just to talk.
This position was not just a paycheck to Walter or additions to his pension. But……Walter is gone now and we need to fill that position with the most competent person, and do it fast. The Mayor already stated in the Globe that the most qualified was from out of town. He should hire that person so this issue and outrage can stop. As far as hiring any member of the council, he will be in violation of state ethics law (Geeze, here we go again)
But the important issue on hiring one of them is……….Where were those three that are now vying for this position when we did not have a VSO for years? Where was the outrage by them for the best interest of the veterans? All three are elected officials and not one of them has ever made a motion as to what was going on with that office. They sure jumped on the bandwagon for their brother veteran’s job when he got tossed under a bus and never once defend him or the veterans for that matter.
None of them are competent enough to be a good VSO for our veterans. |
|
|
|
scamore
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 3:00:47 PM
|
| word on the street joe hickey got the job |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 3:25:09 PM
|
| If that is true, he needs to fire his legal team. They are doing nothing but damaging him. So far all I have seen is incompetent requests and political appointments where they should not be. They were in violation of the 7 day notice and to cover up, the mayor calls it petty. It's the law and your lawyers should have known that but they are all too busy catering to Thibeault. The city solictor didnt even know she had to be made a special municipal employee, she didn't even look into her own appointment and as it stands they are not even sure about the consolidations of the departments if it's legal or not. These things should have been known FIRST. Here we go again *if* Hickey got this position of being in violation of state ethics once again. How pathetic and completely embarrassing for this city. The Mayor played ring around the rosie with people's lives for months when we all know if he hired Hickey it's for personal reasons. I'd like to hear what Hickey has to say on Wood Waste or *not* say. |
|
|
|
italianmoe
Member
32 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2008 : 11:59:07 PM
|
| Congrats to Joe Hickey New VSO |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 1:41:27 PM
|
Although I have nothing personal against Joe Hickey, I do have a problem the way this entire situation was handled and the legal mess that the Mayor made this out to be and didn’t have to be. If he knew all along he wanted Joe Hickey he should have informed him in January and had him resign then. Why waste the other two councilors time and post their names PUBLICLY that they applied for the position which could have possibly damaged thier current positions. What is wrong with him! He used them. They both seem like good people, that was NOT right. He did not have to refer to them by name, he never named the other candidates and could have said "other elected officials" or whatever. Now they have a permanent mark on their names in this fiasco.
Now once again the City of Everett has egg on its face because we have a Mayor that thinks he is above the law and can do what he wants or he really is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. He’s really starting to sound like a famous business owner from Boston Street. He must be rubbing off on him….. just a little too much.
I want to know how the Mayor will handle these laws:
You must be logged in to see this link.
268A: 21B- what’s the date that Hickey was hired and resigned from his CC post?
268A: 20- Per MGL he *must* be resigned from his CC seat for six months.
I heard yet again that the Veteran’s Office is another office the Mayor wants “consolidated” and consolidated with the fire/police even though MGL states he can not do that. He’s out of his mind and look at all these laws this man is thumbing his nose too. I swear DeMaria is Thibeault in disguise.
You must be logged in to see this link.
You must be logged in to see this link.
You must be logged in to see this link.
“DeMaria said he interviewed 17 candidates and decided one from outside the city was the most qualified, but then found that "everyone" he consulted said he should choose an Everett resident.”
So forget the most qualified for our veterans I’m gonna do what I want attitude yet again and what about the Board of Alderman? Joe Hickey (by law) is supposed to be approved by them. When will that be on the agenda?
This is my new e-mail quote:
"Gone are the days," he said, "when the city employees are hired because of their acquaintances instead of their qualifications."
|
Edited by - Tails on 06/17/2008 1:52:39 PM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 7:13:11 PM
|
Tails....Im not seeing what you are in sections 20 and 21B....are you sure you are interpreting the law correctly?
I read them as:
20 has to do with holding 2 elected positions
21a prohibits the mayor from requiring a resignation prior to appointment |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 8:05:39 PM
|
| Isn't there in MGL's, that a member of the City Council has to be out of his seat for six months before he can become the Veterans Service Officer? I am sure I have read that. I believe Councilor Hickey gave his resignation last night from his CC seat. Does that mean he has to wait six months to be appointed the new VSO? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 8:31:24 PM
|
| I remember reading that he didn't have to be out of the CC for six months....I don't recall where I saw that....massdee do you happen to have the chapter/section of mgl you are referring to so we can put this to rest? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 8:41:47 PM
|
I'll have to see if I can find it or maybe Tetris knows it. The following article that was in the Globe also states that a Councilor would need to wait six months. It's the last sentence in the article.
After rejecting city's politics, Everett mayor in a tight spot
By Kay Lazar
Globe Staff / June 5, 2008
With six Everett residents - including three city councilors - vying to be the city's next veterans services' commissioner, Mayor Carlo DeMaria said his hiring decision, which was slated to be announced more than a month ago, has been delayed by "extenuating" factors.
more stories like this
DeMaria said he interviewed 17 candidates and decided one from outside the city was the most qualified, but then found that "everyone" he consulted said he should choose an Everett resident.
"So my whole process of trying to stick to my guns and not be political [about hiring] is political," DeMaria said in an interview Tuesday.
The councilors who've applied for the position are: Millie Cardello, Ward 1, and councilors Joseph Hickey and John "Leo" McKinnon, of Ward Four, DeMaria said.
Other local candidates for the job include a man who also is applying for a position on the city's police force and another who recently returned from service in Iraq, the mayor said.
Interest in the position stretched well beyond Everett's borders and included candidates from Billerica, Concord, and Malden.
When DeMaria took office in January, he vowed in his inauguration speech to end "government by politics."
"Gone are the days," he said, "when the city employees are hired because of their acquaintances instead of their qualifications."
As he grapples with the selection, DeMaria said the department's temporary director, Gerri Miranda, is providing great service to the city's veterans.
She is "doing a fabulous job," DeMaria said, "so I won't be rushed because the veterans are being helped."
Left unanswered is a potential conflict-of-interest issue if DeMaria selects one of the councilors.
State ethics law requires that "No councilor shall be eligible for appointment to such additional position while a member of said council or for six months thereafter."
|
Edited by - massdee on 06/17/2008 8:42:22 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 8:43:51 PM
|
From MGL 268, Section 20(a), fourth paragraph:
This section shall not prohibit an employee or an official of a town from holding the position of selectman in such town nor in any way prohibit such employee from performing the duties of or receiving the compensation provided for such office; provided, however, that such selectman shall not, except as hereinafter provided, receive compensation for more than one office or position held in a town, but shall have the right to choose which compensation he shall receive; provided, further, that no such selectman may vote or act on any matter which is within the purview of the agency by which he is employed or over which he has official responsibility; and, provided further, that no such selectman shall be eligible for appointment to any such additional position while he is still a member of the board of selectmen or for six months thereafter. Any violation of the provisions of this paragraph which has substantially influenced the action taken by any municipal agency in any matter shall be grounds for avoiding, rescinding or cancelling the action on such terms as the interest of the municipality and innocent third parties may require. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 8:49:27 PM
|
| Thanks, Tetris. Does that put it to rest for you, Just Wondering? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 9:10:38 PM
|
No it doesn't...it's a misquote. The section reads as follows:
Section 20. (a) A municipal employee who has a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract made by a municipal agency of the same city or town, in which the city or town is an interested party of which financial interest he has knowledge or has reason to know, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
What tetris posted was a list of exclusions to the law.....the law being discussed in Tetris's paragraph is not applicable to our situation.....not even close.
Come on Tetris....post responsibly or not at all |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 9:17:02 PM
|
| I guess the Globe must be wrong too; why don't you let them know? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Veteran’s Services
