| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2008 : 10:06:41 PM
|
I made a post early today about a commentary in this week's Independent that accused a city councilor of not maintaining a residence in the city. I was careful not to mention the name of the councillor and steered clear of the repercussions that the allegations could have since I didn't know if they were true.
However, this week's Advocate has now printed an article and a commentary that names names. I still don't know if any of this is true but now that it has becomes news, I thought that is was fair game to post the article and the commentary here.
From Page 3 of this week's Advocate:
Councillor Smith's residency questioned
By The Advocate
A formal complaint has been lodged with city and state officials that Ward Three Councillor Stephanie V. Smith, by living out of the city for over two years, has legally forfeited her right to serve as a member of city government.
Leonard H. Jordan, who unsuccessfully ran against Smith for a Ward Three seat on the common council last year, challenged Smith's right to hold a position on the council this week in letters sent to the council president, the mayor, city clerk and the local registrar of voters. He also filed a copy of his complaint with Secretary of State William Galvin.
Jordan alleges that Councillor Smith, who is the daughter of State Rep. Stat Smith, until recently lived in West Peabody for a year and a half while claiming that she was living with her parents at 53 Clarence Street in Everett.
In West Peabody, it is reported that Smith was actually living with her grandmother at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Councillor Smith registered her car in Peabody. Verification of her Peabody residency is rooted in the fact that she received a number of tickets for vehicle violations while in Peabody and was delinquent in paying her excise tax there.
Previously, she allegedly lived in Revere for a year in a dwelling owned by her state representative father.
In addition, Councillor Smith a couple of years ago went to Europe to study for a semester, maintained her city health insurance and collected her full council salary even though she attended no council meetings.
Jordan, in his complaint, does admit that Councillor Smith did switch her residency from West Peabody back to Everett in May of this year, but he is contending that by living out of the city for a year prior to last November's election, she forfeited her right to serve on the council.
He charges that Smith violated Chapter 43, Section 134 of the Mass. General Law and as a result, she should be removed from office.
The section of the law cited by Jordan says: Every city councillor and school committee member who is elected to represent an individual district or ward shall have been an inhabitant of a place within the district or ward for which he is chosen for at least one year immediately preceding his election; and he shall cease to represent such district or ward when he shall cease to be an inhabitant thereof.
A couple of editorial notes. I elected not to publish the West Peabody address in question even though it was included in the paper. Also, the section of MGL quoted in the article was copied and pasted from an online version of MGL so I would not have to re-type it. It varies slightly from the version printed in the paper but not in a substantive way.
I'll just post this for now; I'll post a copy of the Advocate's commentary on the the subject as soon as I can but I need to take a little bit of a break from it for now.
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:39:24 PM
|
From the Sounds of Everett column on Page 4 on this week's Advocate:
What goes around comes around
Sure, public officials should be held to a higher standard but so should newspapers. It's typical of the bottom feeders of Revere with their Wednesday "In-dependent" to beat about the bush about a ward councillor who registered her car in Peabody for around a year and a half, probably to avoid paying the higher insurance rates and excise taxes in Everett. But, they didn't dare name the councillor for fear of losing Rep. Stat Smith's half page political advertisement that appeared in the same Wednesday edition. So, where's the In-dependent's high standard of journalism. If you know Editor in Grief Joshua Resnek, you know there isn't any standard. Knowing Resnek there never will be. So, repeat after me, Josh, Ward Five Councillor Stephanie Smith. Say it, Resnek! They also forgot to mention that quite possibly this same councillor lived in Revere at one of daddy's apartments for probably a year, and then had to leave because Rep. Stat wanted to rent the apartment. Thus, after eviction, instead of moving back to Everett, she moved in with Rep Stat's mom in West Peabody, where she registered her car and pays her excise taxes.
Now, not to be mean to Stephanie, it's ironic that her dad, Rep. Smith, publicly picks on just about everyone he dislikes politically, and now it seems he's put his councillor daughter in the spotlight by her opponent in the last election who has requested an investigation of her residency by the city and state. What goes around, comes around. It's ironic that not too long ago, the first time Stat ran for political office, he unseated Ald. Joe Marchese by publicly accusing him of living in Swampscott. Stat even advertised Marchese's alleged Swampscott address. But, Atty. Marchese owned houses in both Swampscott and Everett as well as other cities. But, nevertheless, Stat's mud stuck and he won Marchese's alderman's seat.
And now, I'm sure, Smith is livid that he suddenly finds a family member in the same spot he accused Marchese of - not living in the city as an elected official. Back in May of this year, it's obvious Stat and Stephanie heard the rumor that a letter was circulating around the city about the ward five councillor registering her car in Peabody at her grandmother's house. So, she has now changed her registration back to her family's home on Clarence Street. Why would Rep. Smith allow his daughter to use the Peabody address when she is a councillor in Everett, supposedly living in Everett. With all his dough - you'd think he'd know better. If you're getting paid to be an Everett councillor and getting city health insurance, why would you make your principle residence your grandmother's house in Peabody? Where's Stat when his Councillor daughter needs him?
So, just to drive the point home, no pun intended, the bottom line is greed. They want it all. |
Edited by - tetris on 08/28/2008 11:47:52 PM |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 09:37:44 AM
|
Thank you, Tetris, for posting that. I don't always get the Advocate, the store runs out.
Even if this is true, Stephanie Smith is an adult that makes her own decisions. The article in the Advocate was maliciousness towards her father, not her. Where has this guy Jordan been all this time? He conveniently waits right before a State Representative Election??
As for quoting M.G.L. the city has been in violation so many times I lost count. If they go after her, they better go after EVERYONE on the City Council that would be in violation of M.G.L. Chapter 43 Section 134.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 11:01:47 AM
|
Although it's time-consuming, I try to post/comment on some of the things in the Advocate that I think will be of general interest. I actually missed some things last week and there's more in this week's Advocate that I find interesting. Most, if not all of them, concern the state representatives race. I'll try to get them in one fashion or another when I can.
As I posted in the Leader-Herald thread last night, I first read about this on Topix last spring; someone over there posted that the issue would come into full light in September, when it could have the most impact on the election. It looks like they weren't far off.
If Mr. Jordan has had this information since then (the information in the Advocate backs up that it has been available since May), what does that say amount him? Not very much. And anyone else that may be involved in the timing of the release of this information? Not a strong recommendation for any of them either. Ah, Everett politics at its shining worst. |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 3:33:43 PM
|
That is so low of Matewsky to turn on Smith's kids. They used to call him Uncle, and now he is trying to set them all up because he has a feud with their dad. He is one low class son of a B. Matewsky beware I am sure Stat has some great stories about you that he can print in the rags of this city. Kharma is a bitch!
Sally |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 7:11:21 PM
|
Matewsky is the lowest form of life. And for the Advocate to dare to "high standards of journalism" was the funniest thing I've read in quite some time. Mitchell has to gall to insinuate that Resnick doesn't want to lose Smith's advertising dollars???? How about the money that's funneled to Mitchell by the School Department? And where exactly did Wayne get the money to pay for that ad that just happened to run on the same page as the "article" on Stephanie Smith's residency? Every one knows Wayne doesn't have the proverbial pot to **** in, and yet he can pay for a 2/3 page ad? I can't wait until his campaign finance report comes out. That should be a fascinating work of fiction.
As for Lenny Jordan -- a bitter defeated candidate and oh, by the way, a friend of Wayne's. Need we say more????? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 1:04:40 PM
|
| It looks to me as, if you can't win on the issues, then attack the other candidate on personal and family issues. I am so sick of this kind of politics in Everett. Citizen, I couldn't agree with you more. Matewsky IS the lowest form of life. For the life of me I will never understand how he continually gets elected into office. |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 3:45:21 PM
|
Do the guys who work at the city yards have to live in Everett?
Sally |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 4:54:10 PM
|
| I think the only resident requirement left is for elected officials........... And then it's only if they get caught! |
|
|
|
Paul
Senior Member
158 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 12:03:42 PM
|
She has been outside the city for various time periods while we pay her salary and health benefits.
If she was living in her father's house in Revere and the Grandmother's house in Peabody then Stat is also guilty to being a part of this charade.
Stop making excuses--she should be out.
This shouldn't only apply to her and Stat but ANYONE who pulls these stunts.
I am hearing Eloy Sierra has moved out of his ward but continues to hold a seat--That is wrong also.
Why doesn't any Councilman or Alderman question this stuff ? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 12:37:34 PM
|
| I think people are just sick of this type of childish nasty politics. If they "supposedly" knew she was not living in Everett (which has not been proven) why didn't they do somehting about it then? Why wait until two weeks before an election? It's maliciousness and cruel and shows true character of a person. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 9:25:29 PM
|
A letter to the editor from this week's Advocate:
To the editor:
I am a life long resident of Everett and a prior candidate for Ward 3 Council in the 2007 election. It was recently brought to my attention that Ward 3 Councilwoman Stephanie V. Smith did not reside in Everett for the year prior to the November 2007 election, as is required by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 43, Section 134. It also came to be my understanding that Ms. Smith only switched her residence from West Peabody MA in May 2008.
Last week, on August 26, I drafted a short letter detailing this information and hand delivered it to five locations in Everett, where it was properly time and date stamped, as well as faxed and mailed it to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin in Boston. In that letter, I respectfully requested that a formal inquiry be made into this matter. The four locations in Everett we as follows:
- Administrative assistant for the Everett Common Council, c/o Lorraine Bruno, President, Everett City Hall
- Mayor of the City of Everett, Honorable Carlo DeMaria, Jr.
- Everett City Clerk Michael Matarazzo
- Everett City Administrative Registrar of Voters Maria Pierotti
- Everett Common Council Clerk James F. Marchant
The point of my efforts was for this issue to be brought up at the common council meeting this week. It was not. I am writing this to you because, although this may be Everett's worst kept secret, for some reason it is not getting addressed by the common council. I appreciate your efforts in bringing this matter to the attention of more individuals.
Sincerely,
Leonard H. Jordan
I'll comment on this letter after I share some pertinent research that I did. First, the section of MGL that Mr. Jordan referenced:
Chapter 43: Section 134. Residence of district members
Section 134. Every city councillor and school committee member who is elected to represent an individual district or ward shall have been an inhabitant of a place within the district or ward for which he is chosen for at least one year immediately preceding his election; and he shall cease to represent such district or ward when he shall cease to be an inhabitant thereof.
Next, the section of the City Charter that I believe would be pertinent in this situation.
Section 13. City council to be judge of election of members, etc.
Each branch of the city council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its own members, shall determine the rules for its own proceedings, and may appoint such assistant clerks and other officers as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its own business.
Each branch of the city council has it's own Ethics Committee. The members of the Common Council Ethics committee, according to the city web site, are:
ETHICS: Councilors Lorrie Bruno, Kay Hicks, Joseph Hickey, Joseph King, Sal DiDomenico, Millie Cardello
Obviously, Joe Hickey no longer serves on this committee but the list on the city web site hasn't be updated. So, it is unclear, to me at least, who his replacement may be.
The one last piece of information that I would have liked to have had before making my comments would have been a copy of the common council rules. We know that they exist, they are referenced often enough, i.e. rule 17; but, a copy of them is not readily available on-line.
According to this letter to the editor, Mr. Jordan handed over a letter to city government that made allegations against Stephanie Smith. There was no mention that he handed over anything to back up these allegations. I would have liked to have seen a copy of the city council rules to see if it contains anything that specifies how situations like these are supposed to be handled. In lieu of that, let's try to work this thru logically.
Mr. Jordan turned over this letter in plenty of time for an item to appear on last week's Common Council agenda; but, if no proof was provided with the letter, is it reasonable to assume that an item would have been put on the agenda just on his say so. Anybody can walk into city hall with a letter accusing a city official of something. Is it fair for any city body to accuse someone of something without having done it own due diligence first? Unfortunately, these things take time. Just because the item didn't make the very next agenda doesn't necessarily mean that the council president is ignoring Mr. Jordan's request. If the item doesn't appear on the agenda in the near future, then Mr. Jordan should take the issue up with the council president rather make his case in a local paper.
Now that I've made the logical, rational argument, let's get down to brass tacks. Obviously, Mr. Jordan and his buddy Matewsky aren't happy that they weren't able to gain maximum advantage from last week's accusations. If they wanted to do that, they should have been prepared and walked into city with a full packet of indisputable evidence. They had plenty of time, the rumors have been around since the spring. It would have taken time and cost money to do so. If they wanted to make sure that their plan would work, it would have been a good investment. If the evidence that was outlined in last week's Advocate does exists, it sounds like they would have had a pretty good case. But now, we're just getting a load of sour grapes in the good old Advocate to try to keep the issue alive for the election. Seems pretty lame to me. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2008 : 1:58:30 PM
|
I think it's terrible to use local newspapers for your own advantage. As I stated previously, it's cruel and I'm tired of these types of politics and these trashy people.
Everett looks like the biggest joke to other cities and towns. Does Mr. Jordan feel he will walk right in to a ward three seat? I doubt that will ever happen.
This whole thing was maliciously planned out. How can they look at themselves in the morning?
Tetris,
You summed it up perfectly! |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2008 : 2:46:52 PM
|
I agree that the way this has played out is extremely suspect however I have another question..........
Does anyone else have a problem with Stat not stepping up to the plate and blowing the whistle?
I realize she's his daughter and he cannot, and should not, be held responsible for what his adult children do. BUT, as an elected official, isn't he supposed to uphold all the laws? Doesn't that mean not turning his head when he sees wrongdoing regardless of who is doing it?
Stephanie put him in an extremely difficult position and that was a thoughtless thing to do. But, to my way of thinking, he made it worse by not making her out of town residency public knowledge. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2008 : 5:17:50 PM
|
First of all . . . is there any proof right now other than an accusation being made by a bitter runner up in the Ward 3 Council race who also happens to be a friend of Wayne's.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are true. Justme, do you honestly think any parent is going to blow the whistle on their own child for something like this?
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2008 : 5:44:20 PM
|
You're right Justme. We really only have focused on one side of the issue in this thread. Although that's not normally the way that I personally like to do things, I'll admit that I've purposely not done so in this case as to not give the Matewsky camp anything to work with. I'm not a stauch supporter of Stat's but I certainly feel that he's the better of two evils, even after this. That's how little I think of Matewsky.
You pose an interesting question, do you blow the whistle on you own child? My best answer is not to let it get to the point where that even becomes a question, if you can. If the information contained in the Advocate article is correct, she first lived in an apartment in Revere owned by Stat. So, if all of this is true, he's complicit in all this as well. Do you blow the whistle on yourself?
I think that there's a tremendous sense of entitlement that way too many politicians have. Too many think that the rules shouldn't apply to them or they should be bent to suit their needs. They'll just take the risk of doing what they want and hope that they don't get caught. When they do, they need to take their lumps. I'm not sure what's Stat's lumps should be, but I feel that he has some coming in this case if the allegations are true.
Since I pride myself in being as fair as possible, maybe I have some lumps coming to me too since I have not posted about this side of the story until now. |
Edited by - tetris on 09/06/2008 5:51:06 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Stephanie Smith
