| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 2:10:23 PM
|
I haven't heard that one yet. Interesting!
"Deb" |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2009 : 2:12:33 PM
|
| Rosa makes her financial problems well known publicly. Shes been going after jobs and favors since the days of John Hanlon. When he told her his procurement officer couldnt help her out financially with her house, Rosa fed him to the wolves. She literally had that office shut down because his account ran over. Look at all the overrun accounts we have now, and she doesnt say anything. Live within your means and the days of favors are much moreso than the Ragucci era. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 8:29:37 PM
|
| So what job is being created for her? Will the city be providing employment for her children as well? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2009 : 1:31:49 PM
|
Cruller,
I apologize for not getting to this sooner but I'd like to go back to your long post from last Thursday night as I have some questions about it.
First, I'd like to thank you for doing that post. There is a lot more to the issue than what I was able to convey in my brief post directly before yours. I still stand by that post though. The budget, as presented, was up against the tax levy. The budget, as amended, in combination with the approved $947,701 free cash transfer, should be in the same exact position in regards to the tax levy. Without the transfer, the amended budget would exceed the tax levy. All I was trying to get across in that brief post was to explain the current reality, whether we agree with it or not.
On to the questions:
- Could you point me to the city ordinance that requires a $500,000 contribution to the city's Stabilization Fund annually?
- You made a statement that the FY10 budget didn't include the required contribution to pension fund. Could you explain that? I see a rather large amount budgeted for that. It's somewhat less than the amount required in the latest funding schedule on the PERAC web site (You must be logged in to see this link.). But that schedule dates back to 2007; so, I'm not sure that it could be considered current. The budgeted amount is in the ballpark though.
- On the subject of PERAC, where on their website do you find that the city only recently paid what I would assume would be their FY09 contribution? Retirement contributions are due on July 1st of every year. If that payment isn't made on time, that would be a big deal. All I can find on the PERAC site are links to PDF files and none of the Everett ones appear to have been updated for a while. And just for clarification purposes, the pension fund does not need to be 100% funded until 2028. I too would like to see the city be more pro-active in closing the gap; but, I just don't see how that is possible at the present time.
- What are the three additional positions that have been added since the presentation of the budget and what department(s) are they in?
- In regards to the FY09 Tax Recap, exactly where does it show that $750,000 was overspent? I have a question about the $460,692 that appears on line 10 of the amounts to be raised section. But that was actually down from the $501,372.82 that appears on the same line in the FY08 Tax Recap. The other unusually high amount in the FY09 Tax Recap was $571,320.06 for total overlay deficits for prior years. That amount is more than 7 times greater than any of the previous eight years and, for many of those years, the amount was actually zero. I'm just starting to educate myself about overlay accounts but I'm not sure that all the blame can be assigned to the current administration for things that have happened in the past. Without detailed information about the tax settlements that the amount represents, it would be almost impossible to tell.
- I'll agree that no money was budgeted in FY10 to fund raises for the Police and Fire departments. But do you really feel that $2 million will be needed to fund them? As rough number, if you add together the personal service totals for Police and Fire (from the submitted budget document because that's all that most of us have access to), you get an amount just short of $15.4 million. An increase of $2 million over that number would represent an almost 13% increase.
- Lastly, is it really fair to say that $11,625,470 in free cash (I recently tracked down the exact number from the state web site) was left for the current administration? Wasn't a good chunk of it used by the prior administration before they left office, with the majority of their usage being requested at least before the November election occurred? |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2009 : 8:59:16 PM
|
I was wondering where you were Tetts!!! It's like a day without sunshine without the blog police.. lol First and foremost, I was absolutely, positively, sure you'd stand by your post; that's your way....However, and I say this with all due respect.... your simply wrong on this one Tetts and no matter how many times you say it, the facts are the facts and they don't lie. Plain and simple: the $947,701.15 transfer is absolutely part of what it takes to operate this city for next year. Circumvention of the budgetary process may be a manner in which to get your cake and eat it to; however, its pure wrong and certainly not a solid manner in which to budget. It in no way is honest. I laughed that you felt that you have to preface your remarks with "you didn't have time to post adequately......" Tetts; lets face it, you've bought into the lie. Hook, line and sinker.... That is certainly your perrogative; however, its just that... a lie. It is not going to take 132 million to run this city next year, it will take the 132 and change PLUS the 947, which is another million. This will bite us on he ass next year when, once again, we have to come up with this money. You better pray that free cash will bail us out. If not, "bye, bye" "something" worth one million.
This SAME, EXACT SCENERIO happened when the second Hanlon budget was put out. SAME EXACT! With one exception. The Auditor did not advise the Mayor at that time to put the transfer on first. They were set up and the rest was history.
As it concerns your "questions". Lets call a spade a spade, man to man..... You looked, looked, looked and found, what you thought were inconsistencies and said.. "Ah... I got him..." Well, here goes.
A. The Ordinance you are questioning was absolutely, positively passed sometime after the first Hanlon budget. It was done (referring back to BOA & CC tapes) at the behest of the city's consultant on financial affairs. It came about when the City was put into a corner and had to borrow money. At that time, they were adament that annual contributions to the budget were necessary to show a commitment to the overall health of the city. This was made public on tape and in the newspaper. All of us who read and watch the meetings saw that.
B. The Pension Fund/PEREC contribution comes in the form of a letter to municipalities annually. In that letter they give each municipality a number of choices on what to pay (this is done for those cities/towns that owe back money, such as Everett). If you look back on previous years budgets debates, especially in 2007, there were spirited conversations of this. Aside from this, I happen to know this because I did consulting for PEREC in my former life. During the Hanlon Administration, they chose the first budget to pay the amount due PLUS monies toward the overage. I remember quite clearly the financial consultant saying shortly there after that taking care of this responsibility helped us elevate our overall financials. It made us look solid and forward thinking. During the second budget, because of the tax levy debacle, they could not. In the past two years, the city has chosen NOT to give the extra to
lower the amount due; they gave the minimal allowed. NOW...let me say right here... after the original post, I posted again to say, yep, they are making their baseline contribution this year. You are accurate. The electronic transfer (wow, was that a big discussion two years ago between the Councilman Chairing the Budget Hearings and the Treasurer) is done on the first of July for most municipalities. Tetts, I try my hardest not to make assumptions when I post, neither do I research something and then give my opinion stating it as fact. Lets face it..Who am I? (A simple over opinionated voter who wants to share and now that I'm semi retired, has the time.) Only an authority would be so sanctamonious. In important issues like this,if the answers aren't in the old films or notes (as you take) I call and ask the appropriate people and post accordingly. I would never put someone down and stand on a high horse saying their ideas weren't valid. Although the misses says I think I know everything.... You can ask and look all you want on their website, some of these things you'll never find. Everyone doesn't know everything and that's okay; however, trying to undermine someone's valid contribution is just not right.
C.The three positions {thus far} are two in the Treasurer's office, the Recreation position, and the part time position in City Services that became full time. Again.... this is the perrogative of the administration; however, be honest. Put it in the budget, dont do it sneakily.
D. Recap: Tetts.... take a chill pill will ya. Take a look at the RECAP sheets and you will see on page 2 numbers 9 and 10. These two entries allow for deficiences in ice and snow (which is allowable annually) and "other". The other is 99% of the time,monies that were, for lack of a better term, "overdrawn" by departments. If you look in the 07 budget, there were almost none. In the 08 budget, the amount extra paid for the retirement plus the retro monies needed for the union contracts were on that line. Last year; however, this line represented overages in city spending. Money that should have been transferred from free cash.
Again, you miss the mark when you spoke of overlay; however while we're on the subject......remember, they took money out of the overlay last year (see budget hearing films).... wait till we see the deficit in that account this year with all the claims filed in the Assessors office this past year.
FINALLY.... FREE CASH:
Tetts: In ALL due respect, and I truly mean that. I dont feel that you can allow yourself to see beyond your negative bias for the former administration to the give the Devil their due. You've proven that time and time again. However, that particular year, the financials of this city were never ever better!!!! Sure, you will point to a record increase in the budget. AGREED, there was. However, 98% of that increase was due to the state. Only 80,000.00 was a real increase in city spending. That can be proven by looking at the budget book and comparing each year. VERY SIMPLE.
The 11.6 million dollar free cash number was earth shattering. One of the largest in the city's history. Take a look at the free cash amounts that year. We were among the largest. That certainly didn't come by accident. It was good decision making. That same year was when the bond rating increased as well. I know it's hard for you to not see red when we speak of Hanlon, but call a spade a spade, man, the financials were in line. As it concerns how the 11.6 was spent.... GIVE ME A BREAK, WILL YA? .... after Hanlon lost the primary, do you really think he made those decisions? They were treating him like a red headed step child. No lame duck Mayor makes those decisions. The incoming Mayor and the BOA and CC made the decisions to utilize a good chunk to lower the tax rate. Free cash amounts come out in October. Hanlon had lost the primary. Hanlon made NO decisions. I'm surprised they let him in the building the way he was being treated.... There was 11.6 million there and when the new administration came in; it sat there for the taking; except for what Carlo allowed the BOA and CC to utilize for THAT years taxes. Then in '08, they used the remainder to do the same.... a true miscarriage of justice! Made for a nice headline; but not fiscally prudent. Buy a clue... free cash is supposed to be utilized in a manner consistent with governing; not take the place of overspending and fixing a tax problem.
I REALLY HATE WHEN FACTS ARE MISREPRESENTED and I especially think it's irresponsible to place opinon out there for fact when it's a biased fact pattern you base that opinion on. I appreciate the research and hard work you put into your contributions; obviously its more than a past time. However, its certainly not the definitive be all and end all and there is room for a litany of other valid opinions.
You know, I, personally, respect all contributors to this venue. May not agree with them (as they dont agree with me) but I respect their right to post. I'm not feeling that with you Tetts.
We can agree to disagree that is what this is all about. All of us, bring to the table our life experience. I'm sure in your line of work you utilize your skills when posting. I certainly do. Right, wrong, or indifferent, we all have valid viewpoints.
Lets face it.... we're just opinionated people who love to debate!!!!
Just My Humble Opinion
[b]"Cruller DaHville"
 |
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 06/10/2009 07:00:54 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 10:11:59 AM
|
| I just found out Frank Champi got fired and Hal Abrams was hired. Why does Abrams sound so familiar? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 10:56:38 AM
|
Is there any reason why Mr Champi was let go? I thought he was doing a good job and well liked.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 11:02:45 AM
|
| As far as I knew, Frank is a hard worker, was not in jeopardy of losing his job just two weeks ago, and it looks like we tossed Frank under a bus to hire a 56 year old man?? Is the pension system not already burdened enough? There is NO justification for this, only to once again burden the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 11:03:06 AM
|
Is this the same person that was hired to replace Mr Champi?
Page 1
SUFFOLK, ss.
COMMISSION ADJUDICATORY
DOCKET NO. 663
IN THE MATTER
OF
HAL ABRAMS
DISPOSITION AGREEMENT
The State Ethics Commissionand Hal Abrams enter into this Disposition Agreement
pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission???sEnforcement Procedures. This Agreement
constitutes a consented-to final order enforceable in the Superior Court,pursuant to
G.L. c. 268B, ?? 4(j).
On September 12, 2001, the Commissioninitiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, ?? 4(a), a
preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interestlaw, G.L. c. 268A, by
Abrams. The Commission has concludedits inquiry and, on May 30, 2002, found
reasonable cause to believe that Abrams violated G.L. c. 268A, ?? 17.
The Commission and Abrams nowagree to the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1.
Between February 13, 1991 and December 13, 1999, Abrams wasa local
building inspector for the Boston Inspectional Services Department(???the ISD???). As
such, Abrams was a municipal employee within the meaning of G.L. c.268A, ?? 1.
Between August 30, 1999 and November 30, 1999, Abrams was on unpaidmedical
leave from his ISD employment. During that time, the city co-paid Abrams???shealth
insurance premiums, and both the city and Abrams anticipatedthat Abrams would
resume his ISD duties when his leave ended. Therefore, duringthe time relevant,
Abrams remained a municipal employee subject to the conflict-of-interestlaw.
In mid-October 1999, Abrams entered into an oral consultingcontract with Global
Ventures Ltd. (???GVL???), a Boston developer.
2.
Abrams worked for GVL as a consultant for about two months and earneda total
of about $8,800 in compensation.
3.
Abrams ceased working for both GVL and the ISD in early December 1999.
Applying for Permit from Boston Landmarks Commission
4.
While working for GVL, Abrams served as a consultant on GVL???s developmentat
One Ashburton Place, Room 619, Boston, MA, 02108
phone: 617-727-0060, fax: 617-723-5851
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Ethics Commission
Page 2
485-497 Harrison Avenue in Boston???s South End.
5.
The Harrison Avenue project, which was estimated to cost $1.2million, was
within the jurisdiction of the city???s South End Landmark DistrictCommission (???the
Landmark Commission???).
6.
In early November 1999, Abrams as a consultant for GVL onthe Harrison
Avenue project visited the Landmark Commissionoffice with the project architect. They
discussed with the Landmark Commissionstaff how to apply for and receive Landmark
Commission approval for the HarrisonAvenue project.
7.
On November 8, 1999, Abrams went with the project architect to filea Landmark
Commission application on behalfof GVL for design approval regarding the Harrison
Avenue project. At the time, Abrams was acting in his capacity asGVL???s consultant on
the Harrison Avenue project.
Thereafter, the Landmark Commissionsent
correspondence concerning the project to Abrams???s attention at GVL.
8.
GVL paid Abrams for his duties as a consultant on the Harrison Avenueproject.
9.
Section 17(a) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal aemployee from,otherwise
than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties,directly or indirectly
receiving compensation
1
from anyone other than the municipality in relation to a
particular matter
2
in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial
interest.
10.
Section 17(c) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from,otherwise
than in the proper discharge of his official duties, acting as agentfor anyone other than
the municipality in connection with a particular matter in which themunicipality is a party
or has a direct and substantial interest.
11.
The design approval application for the Harrison Avenue project wasa particular
matter.
12.
The city had a direct and substantial interest in this particular matterbecause the
Landmark Commission was responsiblefor reviewing and approving the design
approval application.
13.
Abrams acted as an agent for GVL when he appeared at theLandmark
1
???Compensation??? means any money, thing of value or economic benefitconferred on or received by any person
in return for services rendered or to be rendered by himself or another.G.L. 268A, ?? 1(a).
2
???Particular matter??? means any judicial or other proceeding, application,submission, request for a
ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge,accusation, arrest, decision,
determination, finding, but excluding enactment of general legislationby the general court and petitions of
cities, towns, counties and districts for special laws related to theirgovernmental organizations, powers,
duties, finances and property. G.L. c. 268A, ?? 1(k).
Page 3
Commission office and discussedthe process that GVL would have to follow to receive
design approval from the Landmark Commission.Abrams did not perform this conduct
in the proper discharge of his official duties.
14.
Abrams received compensation from GVL for discussing the design approvalof
the Harrison Avenue project with the Landmark Commissionstaff. Abrams???s receipt of
this compensation was not provided by law for the proper dischargeof his official duties.
15.
According to Abrams, he understood that the restrictions on his workingas a
consultant for or receiving compensation from GVL were onlyin relation to those
particular matters which concerned projects within his assigned wardas an ISD local
building inspector. It is, however, irrelevant to a violation of ??17 whether the particular
matter concerned a project within Abrams???s assigned ward or not. Theproject could
have been located in any city ward, so long as the particular matterwas of direct and
substantial interest to the city.
16.
Thus, Abrams received compensation from and acted as an agent for GVL,a
private party other than the city, in relation to the design approvalapplication for the
Harrison Avenue project, a particular matter in which the city had a direct and
substantial interest. By so doing, Abrams violated ?? 17(a) and (c).
Acting as Agent with Regard to ISD Permit
17.
During the time relevant, GVL was working on a renovationproject at 24
Cumberland Street in Boston.
18.
On October 29, 1999, GVL applied to the ISD for a permit to performconstruction
work at 24 Cumberland Street. The estimated cost of this project was$2,000.
19.
On or about November 9, 1999, Abrams telephoned the ISD and spoke toan ISD
employee. During that conversation, Abrams inquired as to the statusof the permit for
24 Cumberland Street and asked the ISD staff to process the applicationas soon as
possible.
20.
On November 29, 1999, Abrams visited the ISD office to ascertain thestatus of
his medical leave. While at the ISD office, Abrams learned that theISD staff at the
permit counter could not find the Landmark Commissionapproval on the 24
Cumberland Street permit application. Abrams informed the ISDstaff that the
Landmark Commission had alreadyreturned its approval on the project, which was a
prerequisite to the ISD???s approval. In fact, the Landmark Commission had not yet
approved the application as submitted.
21.
After receiving an amended version of the application later on November29
th
, the
Landmark Commission approved the application with one item to be submitted on
amendment.
Page 4
22.
The ISD prepared the permit for issuance on November 29, 1999.
23.
The construction permit application for 24 Cumberland Street was aparticular
matter.
24.
The city had a direct and substantial interest in this particular matterbecause the
ISD was responsible for reviewing and approving the permit application.
25.
Abrams???s compensation from GVL did not include his work with regardto the 24
Cumberland Street project or his dealings with the ISD on GVL???s behalf.Nevertheless,
Abrams acted as an agent for GVL when he spoke with the ISD staff aboutthe 24
Cumberland Street permit, as discussed above. Abrams did not performthis conduct in
the proper discharge of his official duties.
26.
Thus, Abrams acted as an agent for GVL, an entity other than the city,in relation
to the construction permit application for 24 Cumberland Street, aparticular matter in
which the city had a direct and substantial interest. By so doing,Abrams violated ??
17(c).
Receiving Compensation for Terrace Street Project
27.
In June 1998, GVL filed applications with the Boston Zoning Board ofAppeals
(???the ZBA???) for two zoning variances regarding renovations to its developmentat 150-
170 Terrace Street in Boston. The estimated cost of this project,which was contingent
upon obtaining the zoning variances, was $14.3 million.
28.
While working for GVL, Abrams served as a consultant on the TerraceStreet
project.
29.
On November 23, 1999, the ZBA held a 20-minute hearing on GVL???s twozoning
variance requests. Abrams attended the hearing with membersof the GVL design
team.
30.
GVL paid Abrams for his duties as a consultant on the Terrace Streetproject,
including his attendance at the ZBA hearing.
31.
The zoning variance application process for the Terrace Streetproject was a
particular matter.
32.
The city had a direct and substantial interest in this particular matterbecause the
ZBA was responsible for reviewing and approving the zoning varianceapplications.
33.
Abrams received compensation from GVL for attending the ZBA hearingon the
Terrace Street project. Abrams did not receive this compensation asprovided by law
for the proper discharge of his official duties.
Page 5
34.
Thus, Abrams received compensation from and acted as an agent for GVL,a
private party other than the city, in relation to the zoning varianceapplication process for
the Terrace Street project, a particular matter in which thecity had a direct and
substantial interest. By so doing, Abrams violated ?? 17(a).
Resolution
In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Abrams, theCommission has
determined that the public interest would be served by the dispositionof this matter
without further enforcement proceedings, on the basis of thefollowing terms and
conditions agreed to by Abrams:
(a) that Abrams pay to the Commissionthe sum of $2,000 as a civil penalty for violating
G.L. c. 268A, ?? 17(a) and (c);
(b) that Abrams pay to the Commissionthe sum of $440 as a civil forfeiture reflecting
that portion of the compensation attributable to the ?? 17(a) violation;and
(c) that Abrams waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusionsof law and
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement in this orany other related
administrative or judicial proceedings to which the Commissionis or may be a party.
DATE: April 17, 2003
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 06/10/2009 11:04:39 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 11:05:08 AM
|
Is this the same man that we fired Frank for? I thought that name sounded familiar.
Former Boston Inspectional Services Inspector Hal Abrams fined $2,000 and forfeited $440 for acting as an agent for and receiving compensation from a private employer in connection with matters in which the city had an interest.
Abrams, Hal, Docket No. 663
"Show me who your friends are and I'll show you what you are" |
Edited by - Tails on 06/10/2009 11:06:25 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 12:04:42 PM
|
| I can't believe Carlo would replaced Frank Ciampi! He's been doing a good job and there's no justifiable reason to replace him.......... Especially with someone like this! Another friend of Mr T's, perhaps? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 1:19:58 PM
|
I just read this over on Topix.
"I just found out this is a Thibeault pick. Thibeault has control of city services by putting Zaniboni there and now, he controls code enforcement.
Wood Waste aint goin anywhere folks, and he aint gonna rush on that enclosure either. Wood Waste is going to be Wood Waste and there aint gonna be nothin we can do about it."
"Deb" |
|
|
|
michael
Senior Member
195 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 3:39:59 PM
|
| It is my understanding a letter was given to Frank this morning how sad, here is a guy who does his job and I have seen him out on the weekends driving, and because woodwaste owns the mayor, we have to have people that thiebault picks to be working for this city. I smell a change coming. And I can only hope and pray. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 3:41:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I just heard rosa's store is going out of business taking a job for the city of everett trying to confirm if true
I heard her husband applied for a position at city services. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 3:45:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by michael
It is my understanding a letter was given to Frank this morning how sad, here is a guy who does his job and I have seen him out on the weekends driving, and because woodwaste owns the mayor, we have to have people that thiebault picks to be working for this city. I smell a change coming. And I can only hope and pray.
You and me both Michael. More than you realize. This makes me sick and one can hope and pray for change. Off topic, but have you seen Sweetser Circle. How fat can ones head get? Do we really need LIGHTS on the mayors name? I thought that area had a problem with lighting and the wires run into the ground, so it's not solar. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
More Rumors............
