Boston Common going Private?

I've been following up on my Monday Blog about the Boston City Council wanting to create a Conservancy to manage or oversee the Boston Common. Apparently the blog made quite the impact and numerous calls were made to City Hall and the Globe wrote an article about it. Funny how the news cycle works in Boston. The meeting happens last week and the press doesn't write about it, I find out about what they are planning, blog about it, and then the Globe writes a weak article that doesn't ask the tough questions.

Background: The City Council special committee on the Common made up of Ross, Lamattina, and Linehan has been meeting for a year to discuss ways to make the Boston Common better. They have held some public forums to get input
(such as at Suffolk University) from the Public, and they have roadtripped to New York to look at some Parks there. All of this is good.

They then put together a draft report on suggestions for the Common and presented it at a meeting last week. They gave out the draft to people in the room (since it was a public meeting) and discussed revisions to the draft in a public forum. Again, all of this is good.

Now the bad stuff happens. In that draft report they discuss creating a conservancy, which is a private entity, to raise funds and help manage the Park. It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that the idea of a Conservancy was never discussed at the public forums. The next thing was they asked people at that meeting not to show the draft report to anyone!! (not very transparent!)

I called my South End councilor Linehan to get some answers and to get a copy of the draft report. They said they didn't have it and referred me to Mike Ross's office.

I spoke to Mike Ross's office and they refused to provide me with a copy of the draft report, saying that it was only a draft and that it is going to be changed, and alluded to the fact that I could make a Public Records request for it if I wanted it. They asked me why I wanted it, and I said to see what you are planning to give comment perhaps.

I then asked what the process would be. They responded that they would come up with a new draft that Mike Ross would approve. They MIGHT have another working session, or they might not, and then the report would be presented to the full Boston City Council in a couple weeks to be voted on. I asked "where will the public be able to see what you are proposing for the Boston Common before you vote on it?" The answer, of course, is that we might not be able to. Again, not very transparent.

To me the process should be: hold hearings and gain input as they did, then put together a draft proposal, have another hearing, post the proposal on the City website to get input from ALL the citizens, then put together a final draft, and notice the public about when the public discussion and vote will take place at the City Council. Pretty simple it seems to me, why not get the public input on the BOSTON COMMON???

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Finally, I got down to the nitty gritty, which is the money part, what the really important decisions are about. In the Globe article Councilor Linehan was quoted as saying "The park needs some help right now; financially it needs more money". Councilor Ross was quoted as saying they " want to make the Common a better place that looks to private dollars instead of nonexistent public dollars."

So I asked Councilor Ross's office some questions about money:

Q: How much do we spend on the Boston Common now?
A: We don't have that information

Q: How much do we need to spend to maintain it properly?
A: We don't have that information

Q: How much will the proposed improvements cost?
A: We don't have that information

They then told me about the tough times we are in, and how the Parks Department budget has been cut. I said, "really, are you sure about that?" They checked the numbers and sure enough the Parks Department budget had not been cut but had been increased this year. I appreciate them taking the time to check their facts, but they shouldn't just blurt out that a budget has been cut when it hasn't.

I also brought up the fact that just this summer Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy held a hearing where Councilor Murphy explained that the city had 10 to 25 million dollars left over from last years budget. Councilor Ross thanked him for the information and they decided to use that money to give all the Councilor's staff raises. This video is available on the City of Boston website. Maybe some of that money could have gone to make Boston Common nicer? And what are we doing with all that left over money? I asked Councilor Flaherty that at his Kitchen Table talk here in the South End but he didn't have an answer for that either.

I think if I was doing a year long research project into fixing up the Boston Common, I would find out how much we spend on that Park, and how much the professionals, the Boston Parks Department, think they would need to maintain it in better conditions. Especially before I make public statements to the press about needing more money and "nonexistent" public funds. But that's just me, I'm in business for myself and I look at the bottom line.


Why Conservancy's are a BAD idea
Number one is that this is Public space, owned by the people, of the people and for the people. It is ridiculous to think that we have maintained this park by the citizens for 400 or so years, and now we need to get private oversight involved.

We already have a friends of the Public Gardens and the Boston Common, they are free to raise money and do good things for the parks. There is no reason that they can't continue to do this and raise more private money to help, if possible.

What a Conservancy allows is private control over a public body. For example what happened at the Greenway. They set up that Conservancy supposedly to handle the expense of maintaining the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The Conservancy said they would handle the expenses, but then they said they couldn't raise enough money, but they had already been given control. So the Conservancy goes back to the City and the Legislature who gives them money to run and maintain the park. Since they are a private agency they are not governed by public laws about transparency, accountability, etc. It is a great place for cronyism, nepotism and giving velvet handshake jobs to political friends without any public oversight.

It also allows that private entity to set the rules for the park. Such as no protests, no marches, no silent raves on the Common (as my clients 17 year old daughter pointed out), no Freedom of Speech, no pot rallies, and certainly no homeless people using it as a shelter of last resort.

If they do set up a Conservancy, there needs to be a line in the agreement that says
"This Boston Common Conservancy may NEVER receive one penny of public funds from the City, State or Federal Governments" If it doesn't include that line, then we are giving away public funds to a private entity with no oversight of how that money is spent.


Frankly, hasn't our government admitted failure when they say they are not capable of taking care of the most important Park in the City of Boston?

We blow money on new City Hall studies, bonuses for City Council Staff, signs with the Mayors name on them all over the City, low brow reports on the Open Meeting Law, give away property for free to the BRA, but we can't maintain the Boston Common?

I suggest Mike Ross work harder on getting the BRA to give the City back the money they get for letting the Red Sox close off the streets during game days. The BRA promised Mike and the Council that the City would get that money but we don't. Mike was hopping mad (as he should have been) when they reneged on that deal. Where is that money now?

Can't Trust the Mayor or the BRA

I read the Herald article today about how Ft. Point is mad at the Mayor and the BRA for reneging on promises made to them.

See at: http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1133157

My first thought is: "I told you so."

When I was running for City Council at Large I met with the neighborhood group there and went to a couple meetings where they were discussing the BRA plan for their neighborhood. A number of people were concerned about all the building being planned that exceeded the zoning limits, etc., etc. but they were promised certain things to make up for that.

I told them how to deal with the BRA and the Mayor, how you can not take them at their word, and told them to absolutely get anything they promise in writing. Some people were very interested in addressing the issues in the way that I described (part of my advice was to let them know: don't tell them I am helping you!). But other people said "no, we can't be radical, the BRA has been very responsive and they seem to really care about our needs." I wonder if those people are happy now with what they are getting from the ninth floor at City Hall.

They are very good about seeming to care, right up to the point they approve a giant tower next to you. As I have said all along, we need citizen control over the planning and development of our city. That was in essence what the revolutionary war was all about. Taxation without representation. Well the BRA sets planning policy and tax policy for large sections of the City and the citizens have no input.

Not a very democratic government if you ask me.

But, Freedom of Speech in City Hall!

I was speaking with Councilor Ross's office today and I asked about the comments I have read in the paper about City Councilor's afraid to talk to each other in the halls.

That seemed extremely disengenuous if not an outright lie, especially since I see them talking to each other all the time. It seemed particularly odd when I read about Mike Ross being the next Council President. How could he line up the votes, and how could all the councilors know where each other stood unless they spoke to each other.

Faced with this question, Councilor Ross's office admitted that He is NOT afraid to talk to other Councilor's in the Hall's and that actually he and Murphy had gotten together and talked about who would be Council President.

It must feel good that the Councilor's now feel they can talk to each other in the halls again.

They also wanted to let me know that "Over Councilor's Ross's Dead Body he would not turn the Boston Common over to private interests". More later....

No Freedom of Speech on Boston Common?

The Boston City Council is exploring the option of taking the Boston Common-THE BOSTON COMMON!!!!! and turning it over to a Conservancy. In other words giving control of this, perhaps the most historic and important public park in the country, over to a private group to control. This is what was done with Post Office Square and the Greenway.

Just try and carry a board that says "No more War", or "City Hall is Dirty" in those public spaces, or get a permit to have a peace rally, or call for citizens rights.

Mike Ross, Mr. Lamattina and Mr. Linehan held a get together on this last week. Since all three of these guys are close to the Mayor you can be pretty sure that the Mayor is aware of this, if not behind it.

The assault on Freedom of Speech, and the rights of the citizens to own and control their own property in this country is very troubling.

Please call your city councilors and the Mayor and let them know where you stand on this. 617-635-4000.

DA following up on Open Meeting Law violation at Boston Licensing Board

I am happy to report that the District Attorney is following up on my inquiry about whether an Open Meeting Law violation occurred in granting the Deja Vu liquor license that Sen. Wilkerson was so involved with.

They have requested a number of items related to this case from Chairman Pokaski. It will be interesting to see what they find. What I have discovered in my limited time looking into this is:

1) The Board does not keep minutes of its meetings, they keep audio recordings which are available for $15 and a blank tape. This is against best practices as described by the Attorney General's office at best, and could be a violation itself.

2) The Board told me they don't keep a copy of the license, it is just given to the recipient. This seems quite odd to me, and bears further investigation.

If I was the Mayor or a City Councilor, I know I would be very interested to know how liquor licenses are distributed in my city or district. Instead, we have an acute lack of interest or denial from our public officials who claim to be interested in transparency. Certainly a liquor license in a neighborhood is a big quality of life issue, and you would think they would be concerned with non transparent business going on right inside their own building.

But, to my knowledge none of them have asked for an investigation let alone done their own inquiry into what is going on. The Mayor's spokesman has even told me the Mayor has nothing to do with the licensing board. Well, maybe he should care a bit more about liquor licenses in the City. It is more likely the Mayor knows everything about what is going on with liquor licenses in the City and he was doing some good old fashioned back room horse trading with Senator Wilkerson, whom he endorsed and sent out voicemails on her behalf not two months ago.

City Council admits Guilt-see it in Court Monday

Today is November 15th, the date that Summary Judgments are due in the McCrea v. Flaherty and Boston City Council case. Since today is a weekend, the papers will be filed Monday in Suffolk Superior Court where the public can view the Boston City Councils documents where they admit guilt in 10 more instances of breaking the Open Meeting Law.

For those lawyers and policy wonks out there, you may want to read over their documents where even at this late stage they are still trying to carve out a legal niche for themselves to meet in groups of six to discuss policy matters out of the public's view.

Transparency is still a foreign word to our government here in Boston. The Governor's new Ethics Panel is trying to decide whether to meet in public or private.

It certainly seems to me to be important for this group to meet in public so that the citizens and other interested legislators can give their valuable input. It is hard to believe they are serious about ethics reform if they meet in the dark.

A post about comments

Recently, unfortunately, I have had to take the step of moderating comments something I haven't done in the four years or so I have had this blog.

The reason for this is that some anonymous people were posting comments that were worthy of a third grade playground bully. I have no problem with people questioning my thoughts, opinions or observations. But when people are too cowardly to post their name, and devolve into name calling about my wife, then that privilege gets revoked.



I will publish all comments that are respectful and intelligent in nature.

Thanks for reading,
Kevin

Big Game Today----Wabash Depauw

The undefeated and 3rd ranked in Division 3 Wabash little Giants are taking on our arch rival Depauw University today. We are on a roll, winning last week 63-0! The live telecast is at Clery's here in the South End, where we hope to be joined by my old English professor at Wabash Bert Stern.

Come and Enjoy the beatdown as we bring back the Monon Bell to its rightful place!

How things work in Boston and the State House

After reading the Wilkerson affidavit, as I reported earlier I went and asked the licensing board for some information. There they told me that there was an opening and I asked how do I apply. They sent me to the State House where Governor Patrick's people told me Susan Iannella, who was currently on the state Alchohol Commission, the ABCC, had already been appointed. It would seem to be a demotion to move from the State Board to the City Board, but apparently the $85,000 a year salary to go to 3 meetings a week was good enticement.

I took two actions. The first was to send a public records request to Governor Patrick to see what the qualifications for the post are, where the job had been posted, who he interviewed, and a copy of Susan Iannella's resume. The second was to quickly call Treasurer Cahill's office to apply for the soon to be vacant ABCC job. I figured I must have a chance at that one since it hasn't even been announced that Susan Iannella was leaving yet.

I spoke to a nice woman, Amy Fagerlund in the Treasurer's office who was a bit surprised at my call, saying that Mrs. Iannella hadn't even left yet and they didn't have any announcements about the job. She said she was quite busy and that she would call me the next day with the job requirements. A week later I hadn't heard back from her, so I called and left a message asking for some follow up. Last Friday she called and let me know that they already had someone in mind for the job so it wasn't necessary for me to submit my resume. I asked how I could be considered for the next opening, and she said she would send me an email that I could respond to with my resume. I haven't seen that email yet.

Today I got my response back from Governor Patrick. First, his Counsel explained how the Governor is exempt from the public records law but that he would fulfill most of my request. He let me know that they didn't post anywhere that there was an opening on the Boston Licensing Board, and that they didn't interview anyone, they just appointed Mrs. Iannella. Her resume shows work experience as a consultant and as a Real Estate Broker and Republican National Committee delegate, before being appointed to the State Licensing Board.

I can't wait to see who the person Treasurer Cahill already had in mind for the ABCC position is. Why do a nationwide let alone a statewide search, let alone a job posting when there are so many qualified political family members around?

Some more BS on the way to the Courthouse....

On my way to the Courthouse today for a contempt hearing against the Boston City Council, I stopped by City Hall to see if they took down the meeting posting I have been asking them to take down for a few months. They didn't do it when I asked, nicely, of Feeney, Yoon and Tobin, but file a Motion for Contempt and they jump into action! The meeting notice had been taken town and replaced with another notice that doesn't have a date, place or time and as such is as dubious as the first.

I went to the City Clerk's office to get a copy of the notice. It is always so funny to me how the hired help is so friendly and incredulous about what is going on.

KM: "hi I'd like to get a copy of a meeting notice posted downstairs"

Clerks: "oh you don't need a copy, they are posted online"

KM: "This one isn't"

Clerks "Really?? They are supposed to be. All the postings are online and they tell you the date and time of the meeting"

KM: "Yes, I know they should. But, this one doesn't"

So, they were nice enough to give me a copy of the notice, which contrary to what even the lowly clerks know should be true, ISN'T.

Then I spoke with Rosaria Salerno, who pleasantly told me that "there was no need for that posting to be there".

So, to sum up. Kevin asks nicely for a posting to come down. The City Council refuses until I file a motion for contempt. As soon as I file the motion for contempt, they take the notice down, put up a streamlined version and then the Clerk tells me it doesn't need to be there.

In these belt tightening times, you would think they would have better things to do then put up notices that don't need to be there (and aren't on the website, per city council rules).

BUT, this posting is about the BS on the way to the courthouse...., down one floor at the Mayor's office.

I went to the Mayor's office to ask what he was doing about the apparent violations at the Boston Licensing Board. I was referred to his press office where a nice young man explained to me that he had read the indictment against Dianne Wilkerson, but that the indictment is only about what "Dianne says happened" and is not necessarily true". I tried to point out that the indictment is not about what Dianne says happened, but what the FBI says happened but that seemed to go over his head. I asked whether the Mayor was concerned that the Licensing Board was not conducting business in the proper manner and he assured me that the Licensing Board follows a strenuous process for approving applications. He also let me know, that it is the Governors responsibility for the Board and that the Mayor has nothing to do with it, and hence is not doing any investigations or follow up of the Licensing Board.

He summed up by saying "The Mayor has no influence on the Licensing Board".

Now if you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Election Day report and shenanigans

I voted for Obama, Chang-Diaz and a couple of Iannella's today. I saw huge lines in the morning at 3 polling places.

However, I also saw the continued lack of obeying and enforcement of election law. Supporters and signs must be 150 feet from the entrance of polling locations and signs are not supposed to be attached to public property. However, everyone still does out, Obama signs, no on 2 signs, etc. are right outside polling locations as are their supporters.

The city even sent out election crews this year to paint white lines 150 feet away from the polling locations so people would know where they could stand and support their candidate. However, the woman in charge of my polling location was never informed of this by the election department. She was thankful when I pointed them out to her.

We need better communication and oversight.

But, everyone seemed very pleasant even with the crush of the crowds, I hope everything goes swimmingly.

The rumor is that Dianne Wilkerson will take whatever number of votes she gets today and use that as an excuse to stay on as Senator for the rest of her term. The argument will be that "X number of people in my district voted for me, and I can't leave them without representation."

Shout out to my mom!

My mother worked hard this weekend campaigning for Barack Obama and other democratic candidates in NH. She drove up from MA with other volunteers and canvassed some rural areas.

It was a tough but worthwhile effort she reported. At one point, she even met with a gentleman who had lost a son in Iraq. He told her that he comes from a military family, and that he thinks McCain will bring the troops home with honor.

She said that people were very polite and appreciative, even when letting her know they were voting for others.

Go Mom and Go Obama!

Boston is a Tiny Town

My wife and I were set to meet with a friend last night, and on the way I convinced her to let me stop at Kinko's to make some copies (one thing about lawsuits is the endless amount of paperwork, in at least triplicate).

I was in Kinko's all alone as my beautiful bride was parking, when who walks in but one of the subjects of the lawsuit I was making copies for, a Boston City Councilor. We exchanged pleasantries and I went back to copying. The Councilor needed to fax something off, and was gone in a couple minutes saying 'good evening' on his way out.

As I was getting ready to leave I noticed a wallet had been left on the counter by the Councilor. (We have all done it) I immediately went outside and started yelling for the Councilor to no avail. I told the clerk at the desk that if the Councilor came back to let him know I had it, and I called Shirley Kressel up and got two phone numbers she had for him, but both were office numbers with answering machines. Later, I called information and got another answering machine at the Councilors listed number. I even tried calling an old cell number of John Connolly I had, to see if he might have the number, also to no avail. When we got home, it turns out he had re-traced his steps to Kinko's and had called my answering machine, and said to reach him at City Hall tomorrow.

What a quandary we had before he called. Do I even look in the wallet to see if there is a phone number or other contact information? I am involved in a lawsuit with the gentleman, what if somehow I saw some privileged information. Plus,there are all sorts of subpoena's (and marked bills according to the FBI) flying around City Hall which is none of my business. So, I decided the correct thing to do was not even to open it up.

I had joked with Clara as we drove to our friends that I felt like Frodo carrying the ring, and in her best Sam-wise way she told me to give her the wallet, but I insisted that I must carry the burden and do the right thing! So, it is off to City Hall later today.

Letter to District Attorney asking him to investigate the Boston Licensing Board

Kevin McCrea
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
Bigracing@hotmail.com

October 31, 2008

John Zanini
Assistant District Attorney
1 Bullfinch Place
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Violation of Open Meeting Law by Boston Licensing Board

Dear Mr. Zanini:

This letter is a request that you investigate a possible violation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

As per our conversation two days ago, I am asking you to investigate a possible violation of the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. 39 chapter 23 B. It appears from the indictment in the US v. Dianne Wilkerson case that on August 15, 2007 a public meeting was held in which approval for a beer and wine license for the Déjà vu restaurant was not on the docket or meeting agenda, and was not publicly addressed. But, the beer and wine license which is supposed to be reviewed in public was apparently approved by the Boston Licensing Board on that day.

You have indicated that you have read the indictment, and so I will not forward it to you. The Boston Licensing Board can be found in Room 809 at Boston City Hall.

If you need or require anything further to do your investigation, please contact me at once. As you know, the Massachusetts General Laws consider Open Meetings a priority and have a provision that the Courts hold a hearing on any proposed violation within 10 days. I look forward to your timely inquiry.

Thank you for investigating this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin McCrea

Councilor Feeney puts out statement about Open Meeting Law

Statement from the Office of Council President Feeney



Boston—The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney released the following statement today on behalf of the Boston City Council.



“In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs accepting the findings of the Appeals Court. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior Court. Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the Court that will rule on the motion and decide the outcome. The Council understands its obligations under the Open Meeting Law. It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good government and will continue to conduct its business accordingly.”


Let's break this down sentence by sentence:

1) The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney released the following statement today on behalf of the Boston City Council. Did she confer with the other members of the Boston City Council before putting this out? It certainly wasn't a posted meeting, perhaps another violation of the Open Meeting Law, in some sort of serial fashion? However, I give her the benefit of the doubt that as Council President she may speak on behalf of the council.

2) “In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs accepting the findings of the Appeals Court. This isn't true, the City Council went to the Appeals court saying they didn't get a chance to present evidence despite being the moving party. The City Council didn't present any further evidence to us. In fact, the City Council in the 11th hour has brought up 4 additional meetings that neither the Appeals Court nor the Superior Court addressed in their decisions. This statement by Feeney is thus patently false.

3) The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior Court. Correct

4)Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the Court that will rule on the motion and decide the outcome. The court WILL rule on the motion and decide its outcome. I don't like her speaking for me about what is best for the plaintiffs, and it is odd for the Council to be speaking of resolution after spending around $200,000 of taxpayer money on O.M.L. issues when they could have sat down with us three plaintiffs years ago to resolve these issues as we have offered many times. Or, they could have saved money by just paying the $11,000 fine which they will probably still have to pay.

5)The Council understands its obligations under the Open Meeting Law. If the Council understands its obligations why did they just send letters off to the DA the AG and others asking for clarification of the Law? Why did they pay Paul Walkowski tens of thousands of dollars to write up a report about the Open Meeting Law? And indeed, if they understand their obligations, why did they just admit guilt to 10 more violations of the Open Meeting Law?

6) It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good government and will continue to conduct its business accordingly.” If they are committed to transparency why is there a notice at City Hall saying the Rules Committee will meet in confidence, whenever and wherever they want without dates, times or places to discuss the Open Meeting Law? I have asked them to take it down or explain its purpose but no one has an answer. Why did they just send the Walkowski Report off for comment to the DA and AG which recommends that the council seek to exclude itself from the Open Meeting Law?

The fact is that the Council still does not seem to want to do all of their business in public. I have been super busy this week, or I would have filed yet another motion of more transgressions of the Open Meeting Law by the City Council as I told Justin Holmes from Councilor Feeney's office. The public this week was treated to the FBI indictment of Senator Wilkerson which shows how liquor licenses and land deals are done in Boston, in back room deals by "smoke and mirrors" as Dianne described it. That happens in Room 809 at Boston City Hall.

I have asked the City Council to make a firm commitment to Transparency by adopting a Sunshine Commission similar to the one that San Francisco has, but they refuse to even entertain the notion. It is actions like these which make the public wonder how much they are getting the shaft in these back room deals.

Postscript: The Boston Herald called me twice this afternoon trying to get a copy of the Council's Motion for Summary Judgment. I told the reporter I would have to confer with my co-plaintiffs first as a courtesy. The reporter called back and said that Maureen Feeney's office said my blog was incorrect, and accused me of not being transparent for not releasing the motion! I told her that she should ask the council for the motion, it is their motion, but she explained that she was refered to counsel for the council and just got an answering machine. I called Councilor Feeney's office to ask what was transcribed wrong on my blog, but they wouldn't answer the question and also referred me to their counsel and I also got an answering machine.
It was quite odd having the Herald be almost belligerent with me, at one point saying "I gave you an hour to confer with your co-plaintiffs, I have a deadline" as if I owed her anything????? Then accusing me of not being transparent? Not a great way to ask for information I'd say. I told her I'm running a business, and I'm just a citizen, I have people to pay on Friday at pay time, and they are my priority not some unknown reporter. I'm not the one getting paid to do the public's business, and my co-plaintiffs have work as well.
I have nothing but respect for the fourth estate, and the Herald, but if you want to get a story, get the whole story and do research don't badger people into sensationalist stuff.

PPS. If anyone can tell me how to post a PDF on this blog I would appreciate it!

Boston City Council pleads Guilty to the remaining counts in McCrea v. Flaherty

We received a motion for Summary Judgment today from the Boston City Council in which they plead guilty to the 10 remaining counts of the McCrea v. Flaherty and Boston City Council case. They were previously found guilty by the Superior Court on 11 Counts. The City Council appealed that decision to the Appeals Court where they argued that they weren't given enough chance to present factual evidence. The appeals court found them guilty on 1 count and remanded the other 10 back to the Superior Court. Now, 6 months later under a court deadline they have refused to turn over any further factual evidence, and have just moved for the Court to find them in violation for the remaining 10 Counts of illegally meeting with the BRA and others in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

They have spent somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 plus on this, and the clock is still ticking with their outside lawyers.

A transcription of some of the PDF they sent is here:

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to MassRuleCP. 56, the defendants, Boston City Council,hereby move the court to enter judgment as follows:

1) Against the Defendants, inasmuch as the Complaint, as amended, alleges violation of the Open Meeting Law on 9 specific occasions June 3, 2003....

2) Against the Defendants in regard to notice provisions in regard to a council session of December 15, 2004;

Open Meeting Law Violation ???

I called the District Attorney's office today and spoke with the gentleman in charge of ethics and Open Meeting Law violations. Of course he had read the FBI indictment of Wilkerson. So I asked,"did you notice any Open Meeting Law violations?" and he said "you mean at the Licensing Board?"

Hopefully we will have the DA working on some of these cases soon, as the Feds are not interested in State Open Meeting Laws.

It is fascinating to read the FBI papers, it puts in black and white what we all suspected or knew: everything gets done in Boston behind closed doors out of the public view. That is why I have worked so hard for so long to try and make our government more transparent, because it is the common everyday people that are getting the shaft from our elected officials.

Question everything and everyone !

My day at City Hall and the State House--Susan Iannela won the nationwide search for the Boston Licensing Board

I read the FBI indictment of Dianne Wilkerson which shows how the Mayor, the City Council, the legislature, the BRA, the licensing board, etc. do business out of the public eye with "smoke and mirrors" as Diane describes it.

So, I decided to go pay my taxes at City Hall and ask some questions of my government.

I first went to the large gentleman on the 3rd floor reception desk and asked "Where do I go to payoff someone to get a liquor license?" He replied without moving, "Room 809". Who knew it was so easy, I guess you just have to ask!

I first went to pay my taxes, giving the city $7000 or so of my money. I don't think I gave them any money that the FBI had written down the serial numbers of.

Then I went down to the postings board for City meetings. I have been dealing with City Council President Feeney's office for around 3 weeks asking them to take down a sign that says that the Rules Committee will meet whenever and wherever they want. My feeling is that posting is a violation of the Open Meeting Law and I had asked Justin Holmes in her office to take it down. When I went downstairs to the first floor the posting was still there.

I went up to the fifth floor and asked to speak with Mr. Holmes. We had never met, and he was very pleasant. He apologized for not sending me the cover letter of the Walkowski report which he had told me he would send me two weeks, he said he just forgot and that he would get it to me. He said they weren't going to do anything about the notice on the board and that I should speak to the Clerk's office.

Finding no satisfaction there, I asked to see someone from Councilor Yoon's office, the voice of transparency on the council. A nice gentleman went down to look at the notice with me and didn't really identify any problems with it.

Back up on the fifth floor I asked him to see if Sam could take it down, and let him know that if it wasn't down by tomorrow I would probably file for a motion for contempt. John Tobin came by and joined the conversation and I let him know my concerns about the posting as well.

I then went to the Mayor's office and asked if they knew who appointed the Boston Licensing Commission? They didn't know but they directed me up to Room 809, where I then proceeded. I was interested in the Licensing Commission because they were the group that granted a liquor license for Dianne Wilkerson's FBI sting informant, and clearly they could do all sorts of malleable things for politically connected people. I wanted to know who was responsible for appointing such public servants.

A nice lady at the licensing commission told me that the Governor appoints the 3 members of the commission. She told me that Romney had appointed the current people but that one person had died recently so there were only two on the commission: Connolly (Councilor John's Dad) and Mr. Pukaski.

I thought "hey, what a great job for me!" so I said "how do I apply for the job and what are the qualifications?" They said someone new should be appointed soon, but they didn't know what the qualifications are and that I would have to ask the Governor.

So I went to the State House to see the Governor. At his office a State Trooper stopped me and asked what I wanted. I told him I'd like to apply for an appointment and set up a meeting with Mr. Patrick. He took one look at me and said "that ain't gonna happen" (I love how the servants of the people judge a book by its cover) before sending me to another office where I could write a letter asking for an appointment.

I went to the office of constituent services where I waited at the reception desk for about 5 minutes and no one came out. I went toward the back office where I heard numerous voices, one of which was saying jokingly "we are going to have start giving 'Dianne Wilkerson' tours of the State House". As I walked through the doorway into the room, a number of bright young eager faces looked over and the man who was speaking asked if he could help me. Without skipping a beat I said "I'm here for the Dianne Wilkerson tour." I got a few smiles, but clearly he was unhappy to be caught in an inappropriate comment. He escorted me back to the reception area where I told him I wanted to set up an appointment with the Gov, and apply for a position he appoints.

He wrote down the address I need to send a letter asking for a meeting, and the address of the Appointment's Office. I asked how I could find out what the requirements were for the job, and he gave me a card with a phone number. I asked why I couldn't just go back and talk to them and he said they were in a meeting. So, I picked up the phone and called the number and got transferred to the Appointment's person. I said I was interested in the Open position for the Licensing Board, she responded that there was no opening and I said I was just at the Licensing Board and they told me there was an opening. She said they had appointed Susan Iannella back in September.

I wonder when they are going to let the Licensing Board know? I don't even go looking for this stuff, all I wanted to know was who was responsible for appointing people who could so corruptly rig the process on behalf of felon Dianne Wilkerson. What we find is laziness? incompetence? I don't know, but it seems odd that a layperson can find out in 5 minutes that someone has been appointed to a board a month ago when the board doesn't even know?

Yet another example of why I'm not impressed with the efficiency and organization at City Hall.

Wilkerson and the whole lot of them doing it all behind closed doors

You have to read the FBI indictment of Dianne Wilkerson, it lays out everything I've been saying for years. They are all corrupt of transparent ideas, they are all involved in these back room deals out of the public eye. This is how business gets done in Boston.

You can read it at http://universalhub.com/


The Boston City Council, the Mayor, the BRA, the Boston Licensing Commission, the Senate President, other legislators, they are all involved in getting a piece of public property and a liquor license into an undercover FBI agents hand without public process, public review, etc.

This is how government works in Boston and Massachusetts.

Some positive things about Boston Government

After going to Michael Flaherty's Kitchen Table Talk the other night and hearing about how he has a tracking system in his office to keep track of constituent complaints and how vigilant his office was on following up on things, I decided to call his office and ask what was going on with a complaint about an illegal roof deck in my neighborhood that I talked to Michael directly about 3 years ago. I figured 3 years was a reasonable amount of time to get back to me on something, although for some reason I hadn't heard back from him.

I had a nice talk with John in Councilor Flaherty's office who said that they had only started tracking stuff within the last couple years. (7 or so years into Councilor Flaherty's term) He said he would look into it and get back to me. He also said that he sometimes reads my blog, and he wonders why I don't write more positive things, and why I don't critique the Mayor more often.

Well, I agree with him about the Mayor who is the real problem with progress in Boston, it is true that the Council doesn't have much power, and what power they have they don't use or leverage. I have also called the Mayor's office about this illegal deck thing many times over the years, and of course they have done nothing. I recently called the Mayor's office about the status of the Winthrop Square garage. This is the 100 million dollar or so property that the City is going to give away for free, and in the meantime we maybe giving away the millions in parking revenue a year to the BRA. It is hard to tell because no one answers any questions, and most of us have jobs and can't do the checking up on this which we should have the press and our elected officials to do. Anyway, I called the Mayor's office and a nice lady said "Oh, I will get you in touch with the parking garage guy". She transferred me and I got a disconnected line. I called back and got the same lady and explained the situation a bit further and she said, "oh, you have to talk to the BRA about that" and I got transferred to a gentleman's voicemail at the BRA". I left a message (this is at least a couple weeks ago) and surprise, surprise I have received no reply. To say that the Mayor's office is nonresponsive is an understatement.

But, this is a blog about positive things. John got me thinking about positive things about Boston government and two people immediately came to mind: Gary Moccia and Harry McGonagle. They are the number 2 and number 3 people at the Boston Building Department. They are both professionals who have degrees in the construction field and who have worked at 1010 Mass Ave. for many years. They deal with all sorts of construction problems and issues in the City, and they do it in a professional, helpful, cheerful way. My hat is off to them for the great way they deal with all the different people, competing interests, and favor wanting politicians who tug and pull them in different directions. They are an excellent example of why government should hire non-partisan professionals to do professional work.

However, it is my understanding that there is a city or state statute that the head of a building department be an engineer or architect. Instead, Mayor Menino has filled it with political cronies like the former head Kevin Joyce who didn't know a 2x4 from a hammer, but he knew how to answer the phone when the Mayor called and put the vices on people the Mayor was unhappy with. I think he ended up costing the City about $500,000 grand in legal issues before he was shown the door.

Next time you have an inspector visit your house ask him or her how they feel about calls from City Hall from the Mayor's office or City Councilors telling them how to do their jobs, whose house to look into, or more importantly whose house NOT to look into!

An evening with Michael Flaherty at his Kitchen Table Talk

Michael Flaherty came to our Claremont Neighborhood Association last night for one of his Kitchen Table Talks. He was accompanied by his assistant and was shadowed by Jay Walsh who works on neighborhood issues for the Mayor.

Michael asked questions and took comments, directing conversation as a good push poll person or marketer would. He started out by asking if people felt safe in their neighborhood, most answered yes. When one gentleman mentioned a physical attack, Michael almost gleefully let everyone know that rapes and violent crimes and break ins are up this year.

He then proceeded to tell us how awful the schools are, despite a few bright spots. He likened the school situation to a lottery, where you either win the lottery with your child or you move out of the city or go to private school. One resident agreed with him, and said how thankful she was to win the lottery. Michael exclaimed how happy he was that his three kids won the lottery as well and gave her a high five!

Who would ever have believed that City Councilor Flaherty would win the lottery 3 times in a row with his children and get them into some of the good schools? I wonder what the odds are that Mayor Menino's grandchildren also won the lottery? As my mother would say, miracles happen!

I asked Michael who was to blame for the bad schools, despite us spending $17,000 a year per student. He told us that the school system has lost 5000 students in the last 4 years or so, that a lot of money goes into maintenance, Court Street and transportation. I asked what he has done about it and he says he has asked tough questions in the city council hearings on education, but that he voted for the budget because if he didn't it would hurt the children.

We then got to my wife's biggest problem with the city: trash. Michael said "the city is filthy". A point agreed to by most of the residents. The Mayor's representative told us we have more trash cans than almost any neighborhood. Michael told us about pictures his constituents send him to him of bad jobs done by the trash disposal companies.

He talked about development and how the BRA doesn't do a good job of involving residents in the process of development. I asked him why doesn't he come to the neighborhoods when he knows a development is in the works and hold a hearing and get residents input and he claimed he is in the dark about what goes on at the 9th floor of City Hall, often until he reads it in the paper. He then said he had held such hearings. I suggest he do a Freedom of Information Act to the BRA asking for the documents of all currently proposed projects. He could also withhold the funding that the City Council gives them every year until they at least tell the city council what projects they are working on.

We finally ended up talking about CityStat the complaint monitoring system used by Somerville and many other cities around the country. He has been trying to implement it for years but he said the administration is fighting it. I had to ask him the same question 3 times before he finally answered. The question "how much will it cost?". The answer: "3 to 4 million". Since the City has a 10 million dollar surplus left over from last year, and the city council voted their staff a raise out of that surplus I asked why they didn't buy the Citistat program. He answered that the administration is against it.

We also talked about police details which Michael supports.

I came into the meeting determined not to distract the group with issues like the Open Meeting Law which no one really cares about it seems, and stuck to questions about fiscal policy and what Michael had been doing to fix problems in the city. I was afraid I bored some of my fellow CNA members however.

Michael is clearly gearing up for a Mayoral run. I have heard from many sources that he has already made the decision, including people who have spoken to him directly. The basic point of these meetings is to say "schools suck, the streets are filthy, crime is up, the BRA is corrupt, services are not professionally managed, and it is all the Mayors fault. In addition, he is not responsible for any of it because the City Council has no power and it isn't worth his time to try and do something because it would fail. But, he claims he has used his "bully pulpit" to let the people of Boston know that it is all the fault of the Mayor.

It reminds me of what Councilor Turner once told me about Councilor Hennigan, I paraphrase but it is something like "she found religion when she decided to run against the Mayor".

As someone who has known and realized that the Mayor and the BRA are the problem in this City for a long time, it will take a lot more straight talk from Michael before I believe his sincerity. 4 years ago I recall him telling everyone how 'things were getting better all the time', and he supported Mayor Menino in the last election. I'm most concerned with his excuse that there is nothing he can do about it: put proposals on Menino's desk for him to veto, to highlight the old world way of doing business in Boston, as opposed to the New Boston which Michael espouses.

Postscript: when I left the meeting one of the members who I don't know was walking her dog. I went to introduce myself, and apologize if I had taken up too much time with pointed questions. She had taken full part in the conversations (Michael does a great job of getting everyone involved) and I had thought she had been very impressed with Councilor Flaherty. I asked her what she thought and she replied "he is so full of shit" so point blank that I had to laugh out loud.

When are we going to get politicians who just speak the truth? Obama and McCain aren't leading the way with all of their programs, no cuts and the deficit will magically disappear. Don't believe it.

How much more have they spent?

Some people have asked me how much they have spent in total on their new attorney, Mary Jo Harris. I have been too busy to count it up exactly but it seems as if it is only about $10,000 or so, give or take. Of course the fine is only $10,0000 so again, they could just pay it and move on, but why do that when you can keep playing out the clock hoping that Kathleen, Shirley and I get struck by a meteorite!

Especially when they are using that plentiful resource: taxpayer money. Sure is nice to have unlimited taxpayer money on your legal defense.

No wonder Tom Menino is too busy working to stop Question 1 from being enacted to help Democratic nominee Sonia Chang Diaz!

Make $175 an hour reading my blog!

I got some financial documents from the City of Boston legal department this week. They are paying an outside attorney $175 an hour to read my blog!

Nice work if you can get it. Although I value my writing, I don't think it is worth that much!

Mike Ross-City Council President-I thought the councilors were afraid to talk to each other in the halls?

The Dorchester Reporter today announced that Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy worked out an agreement for Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy to be President and Vice President of the Council respectively. There are quotes from a number of councilors about how it went down, and who talked to who, etc. The article can be read at http://dotnews.com/ross.html

What I find so interesting is that when asked by the press about the Open Meeting Law and the court case which found them guilty ($200K of taxpayer money down the drain and counting to fight a $10,000 fine) the councilors usually give some version of "we are afraid to even talk to each other at the elevator", or "we don't even talk to each other" or "if there is a fire in West Roxbury I can't even call councilor Tobin to find out how I can help". But, obviously they are being disingenuous at best, and liars at worst. Clearly, they have no problems calling each other up, asking where they stand on being the next council president, or perhaps other issues.

If anyone believes what they are saying on this issue, please let me know: I have some Bear Stearns Stock to sell you.

On a positive note, congratulations to Councilor Ross on putting together the coalition. More courageously, I applaud Maureen Feeney for stepping down after the term limit she imposed.

Better than Mayor Menino who promised to only serve two terms, and who said to grade him on the school system. Only 58% of students getting a high school diploma, I would say that is a failing grade.

Some Great Music News-Hey Borneo!

When I was recently driving home from New Orleans after fixing some more hurricane damage, I heard a new song that I really enjoyed on a tiny independent station near the Pennsylvania/West Virginia border. It was a song that I guessed was called "Hey, Borneo" by the chorus, and it seemed to have a very liberal, anti-Bush and big oil kind of bent.

When I got home I googled it, and sure enough there is a new album out by a group called Firewater, which is made up of someone named Todd A. and random other musicians. I had never heard of him or them before. The album is called The Golden Hour, and gets its name from that beautiful last hour of sunlight that lends such a beautiful glow over the ocean when sitting on a beautiful beach in the south Pacific. Information about the band can be found at: http://www.firewater.tv/.

It turns out that Todd A was so fed up with the United States and George Bush (despite loving his country) that he headed to Southeast Asia and the Middle East to meet the people that supposedly hate us so and that we have to go to war with.
(Sound familiar? My kind of guy)

He would check into cheap hotels in India, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Israel and set up music jams: as he describes "I would tell the owner I wanted to have belly dancing without the belly dancers". He traveled with a Mac and used that to record the sounds and the songs. He got back in 2007 (wonder if we crossed paths, as we certainly visited many of the same places, and probably some of the same cheap hotels!) and put together this CD.

I got it in the mail a couple days ago and can't stop playing it. It is the best new album I have heard in years, with politically charged lyrics, myriad sounds and styles evocative of those parts of the world, and it is just danceable and fun to listen to. I can't recommend it enough.

There is also a youtube video about his trip and an explanation of his album at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eyn-OSDQp0

Enjoy!

Post about Council Pleading Guilty to Open Meeting Charges

I had earlier blogged about a Motion for Summary Judgment that the City Council sent to we three plaintiffs. As I wrote in that blog, the details aren't done yet. The other parties in the suit have asked me to take the blog down as they don't believe it conducive to final settlement of the case.

I disagree, and believe in transparency, but I'm part of a team so I have respectfully taken it down.

However, I do suggest calling your city councilor and the Mayor and ask why we are spending so much money on this, in these belt tightening times.

kevin

Against the Bailout and alternatives

I wrote my congressman and let him know I opposed the bailout. For those of us old enough to remember the Savings and Loan crisis and the fallout, this latest financial meltdown was all too predictable. Just as predictable that Tom Menino will raise taxes by the maximum 2.5 percent each year and the real estate taxes will go up as well.

In 1993 I bought my first house during those tough economic times. I had to put $60K down on a building price of $160,000.00. With that kind of equity investment you have a real stake in your property. In 2006 I sold a condominium in the South End for 1.1 million dollars and the buyer only had to put down $50,000.00. I knew then that this easy money was crazy, and my partner and I cashed out and stopped buying property.

How is it that someone with only a liberal arts Economics 1 class could see this downturn coming but few others did? The simple answer is probably greed.

As "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" decried almost 40 years ago, there has been a loss of pride, of quality, of knowledge of excellence in this country. It has been replaced with the quick buck, the flashy car, entertainment news, and celebrity. Sarah Palin is the latest end result of this, but I fear worse could be forthcoming.

Here is a simple alternative to the 700 billion bailout. Treat banks as they treat us. Let the big banks which need money come to the citizens, fill out an application and be approved or declined on the basis of their assets, their credit history and their ability to pay. We can set up a blue ribbon executive committee with all the left, right, and middle. How about a board of Congressman Frank and Boehner, Senators Dodd and Gregg, Paulson from the executive branch, and maybe Warren Buffett, the mayor of NYC, and Senator Bernie Sanders to represent the People.

The banks can present their need for money, get terms from the Bank of the People, where we take equity positions, and they can make repayment terms. It would be transparent because they would have to fill out their applications showing all their assets, debts, income, etc.

Any comments on why this is any crazier than just handing over more than enough money to set up Universal Health Care in this country?

Financial Truth about Wilkerson v. Diaz

I was disheartened by Adrian Walker not getting these facts correct. In addition, as one city councilor staffer told me, "city hall was a ghost town on election day. All of Menino's people were out working the polls for Diane".

If you see incorrect or insincere facts out there, please let Sonia's campaign know about it.




Fact Check: Wilkerson Comments on Barbara Lee
Dianne Wilkerson has repeatedly claimed (on Election night and again at her sticker campaign announcement event last night) that this election was "bought," calling out progressive philanthropist and Chang-Diaz donor Barbara Lee in particular:

Boston Herald (9/16/08): "My fear is that people will think this district is for sale," she said, claiming she was outspent. "There has been so much money spent in this process. It has been unprecedented for us."

Boston Phoenix (9/16/08): She called out Barbara Lee, the progressive philanthropist who helped back Chang-Diaz, as having bought the district, in so many words.

PolitickerMA (9/17/08): At her Election Night party Tuesday night, Wilkerson said that Lee spent an "inordinate amount of money" on the race, creating the perception "that this district is for sale."

Boston Herald (9/24/08): At a rally in Dorchester last night, Wilkerson said she would run as a Democrat in a sticker campaign "to make clear to all that are paying attention that this district is not for sale."


THE FACTS:
Barbara Lee, known for her support of female candidates, including many of Boston's female candidates of color (St. Fleur, Dorcena Forry, Cabral, Allen, Mota and Sen. Wilkerson herself in prior years), donated $500 to the Chang-Diaz campaign this year, the legal campaign finance limit.
Per the most recent campaign finance reports, Dianne Wilkerson raised and spent more money than Chang-Diaz this year -- $131,775 compared to $102,888. That figure is in addition to tens of thousands of dollars' worth of independent expenditures on Wilkerson's behalf, including mail pieces from labor organizations and political advocacy groups.
Dianne Wilkerson received nearly $100,000, 76% of her contributions, from donors outside the district, including $14,000 dollars from lobbyists and PACs.
In comparison, 49% of Chang-Diaz's donations were from donors inside the district, and 69% of her donations were from donors giving $100 or less. She received no money from PACs and only $100 from a lobbyist.
For Senator Wilkerson to make claims that the election was "bought" by one outside donor is not just false -- it's ludicrous when you put it up against the facts of who has actually funded her primary campaign and Chang-Diaz's primary campaign.

sam yoon's minutes proposal

Forgive the brevity, I broke my wrist playing basketball and can't type or write!

Offered by Councillor SAM YOON
> >
> > CITY OF BOSTON
> > IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
> >
> > AN ORDINANCE
> > REGULATING THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL
> > MEETING MINUTES
> >
> > WHEREAS, The City of Boston currently provides, via the City Clerk,
> > City Council meeting minutes and these records are available to the
> > public on the internet; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law is meant to
> > cultivate public dialogue on governmental action and ensures this by
> > imposing minimal standards for meeting minute content; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, The City already meets these record standards; however, we
> > should go beyond the minimum standards and make our City Council
> > minutes not only publicly available, but more understandable; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, Increasing the readability of our Council meeting minutes
> > will foster public understanding and involvement in local government;
> > NOW, THEREFORE
> >
> > Be it ordained by the City of Boston, as follows that the City of
> > Boston Code be amended by adding the following:-
> >
> > Section 1.
> > CBC Chapter II is hereby amended by appending the following to 2-10.1
> > after the first paragraph:-
> >
> > (a) In addition to keeping records of City Council meetings pursuant
> > to M.G.L. c. 39, s. 23B, M.G.L. c. 66, s. 5A, and 950 CMR 32.00, the
> > City Clerk shall make comprehensible City Council minutes.
> >
> > For purposes of this subsection only "comprehensible City Council
> > minutes" means a record of a City Council meeting translated from
> > parliamentary procedure wording into plain language, including a brief
> > summary of each topic discussed and/or all votes or formal decisions
> > made during the meeting.
> >
> > Under no circumstances shall the comprehensible City Council minutes
> > include the substance of debates by and among the members of the City
> > Council pursuant to chapter 447 of the Acts of 1947.
> >
> > The City Clerk shall make the comprehensible City Council minutes
> > electronically accessible on the City's website no later than two
> > weeks after the meeting in question.
> >
> >
> > Section 2.
> > The provisions of these sections will become effective sixty (60) days
> > after passage.
>

Thoughts at Sonia Chang-Diaz's victory party!!

First of all huge congratulations to Sonia. I met her for lunch back in 2006 when she was running and I have supported her ever since. Clara and I had a fundraiser at our house a few weeks ago where she answered questions openly and honestly, and where she wasn't afraid to disagree with some in the crowd, even Shirley Kressel.

Deborah Shah, her campaign manager deserves great accolades as well keeping the campaign focused on how to get to 50.1 percent and not get bogged down in stuff that isn't productive.

Someone we dragged to our house who was uncommitted wrote to me today "Great news about Sonia— totally worth the 50 bucks and 3 minutes it took to vote yesterday. “We the people” won a great victory and we got rid of an arrogant pol. It sends a message. Who’s next? Kudos to both of you for stepping up to the plate to help make this happen."



The first thing I noticed when I got to the party last night was that there wasn't a single elected official present. It truly was "we the people". There wasn't anyone I saw in a suit and tie, just average people looking for some accountability and honesty from an elected official, not looking for a handout and a payout. I thought to myself, "how long before Menino & Co. try to put their hooks into her". It really was an amazing victory: Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino, Congressman Capuano, Councilor Yoon, the Teachers Union, etc. all behind a convicted felon who has transgressed multiple laws and norms of society. It really is true that Massachusetts is a corrupt pyramid of power all looking out for each other. I pray that Sonia has the strength of character which she spoke last night of getting from her mother to resist the temptation of power.

Sure enough, it wasn't long before the well dressed suits of Councilor Tobin and Councilor Flaherty came to the party to press the flesh and offer congratulations. One of Menino's sharpies was there as well. A City Council staffer told me off the record today that City Hall was a ghost town yesterday as Menino had all his people out working the polls, doing whatever he could to take care of "one of his own", a fellow politician who could be counted on to give tax breaks to developers, corporate welfare to the rich, and lip service to the rest of us.

It was great to be on the winning side, thanks to everyone of the THE PEOPLE who worked so hard for this victory.

Status of City Council excluding itself from Open meeting Law-and an open Debate challenge to any of them

While I was doing boring paperwork yesterday, I took the time to call my city councilors and see where they stand on the Walkowski report and recommendations that seeks to exclude themselves from the Open Meeting Law as currently constituted.

First some background. The Rules committee chaired by Maureen Feeney received the Walkowski report about 3 weeks ago, had an initial meeting and then a subsequent meeting a week or two later. At that second meeting a vote was taken to send the report to the attorney generals office, the Mass. Municipal Association City Corporate Council, and the Municipal Clerks Association for their comments and review. Only Chuck Turner voted against this, he told me, because he wanted to send it on to those organizations with the stipulation that those organizations were to understand that the City Council approves of these suggestions.

So, I wanted to call up my district councilor (Turner) and the four at large councilors and Council President Feeney to get their positions on this. Other than Turner who was not afraid to say he supports it, the general message from the councilors was that they were all for transparency. But, how can you be for transparency when you vote to have a report forwarded for review that asks for exclusion from the Open Meeting Law. They seem to want to have this dance of saying they personally are for transparency, it is just others who are moving this forward. However, if they were for transparency they should have spoken against this nonsense, and stopped wasting everyone's time with it. Surely, the Attorney General has better things to do than review a report which the Council supposedly doesn't agree with?

Councilor Connolly's office told me that John was an ardent supporter of Transparency. I asked what he had done ardently to support transparency but they couldn't answer that. His chief of staff said the councilor would call me back. Still haven't heard from him.

I called Councilor Murphy's office and no one picked up.

I called Councilor Flaherty's office and had a nice conversation with a staff member. He assured me that under no circumstances would the councilor vote to exempt himself from the Open Meeting Law. He said that Councilor Flaherty only sought clarification on the law. He said Flaherty cares a lot about transparency, and agreed that transparency is a problem at city hall especially with organizations like the BRA and the City Budget which buries all sorts of items. The gentleman even called me back this morning as we apparently missed each other at the Sonia Chang-Diaz victory party last night. My question to him is: what questions would Michael Flaherty like clarification on? His position for at least 2 years has been that he wants clarification. Why not be transparent about what you are not clear about? It is only Shirley Kressel, the District Attorney, Kathleen Devine and I that have brought about OML issues, why not ask some of us? He said he would get back to me. I appreciate the fact that they are at least responsive, if not giving a very clear answer. Flaherty is on the rules committee and he could have voted against the Walkowski report going any further but he didn't.

I spoke to Councilor Yoon's office and a nice lady there told me that Sam cares a great deal about Transparency. He, though, is also on the rules committee and voted to forward the Walkowski report on. It is kind of hard to be both for something and against something at the same time. Unless you are a politician, I guess. She told me (see earlier blog post) that Sam is introducing a bill to make the City Council minutes more readable for the public. Councilor Flaherty's office told me that Councilor Flaherty is in favor of this action. I said I'd love to see the bill and asked if she could email a copy to me. She said she would. I didn't receive it yesterday and I called her this morning and she said she would send it, but that the chief of staff had to send it. I still haven't received it. I do agree with Sam Yoon that the City Council minutes are atrocious, in particular the August 6, 2008 minutes which are so inaccurate that someone might even be inclined to think that they are in violation of the Open Meeting Law and might think about filing a lawsuit (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)!!!

I called Councilor Turner's office and they said he would call back. He did give me a call and then proceeded to explain to me why he voted against this Walkowski thing, because he wanted the council to be more proactively for it. He feels the council is even less effective than it was before. He feels it is important for the councilors to be able to meet in private to "build relationships". He told me that he thinks both the Superior Court and the Appeals court were wrong about the Tularemia decision. He thinks the Tularemia situation was an emergency. I said "but Chuck, the Tuleramia problem happened 6 months earlier, in the summer. How was it an emergency in January?" But he insisted it was an emergency, so I said "Chuck, why don't you read the Open Meeting Law, if something is an emergency there are provisions for having a meeting why didn't you just follow the law?" He said something about it being 8:30 in the morning and they couldn't find everyone or something to that effect. I forgot to ask him the most important question: if this Tularemia meeting was an emergency and so important, than why did the City Council argue in their legal filings in McCrea v. Flaherty that the City Council has no jurisdiction or control over the Public Health Commission, or for that matter over any public health issues in the city? How could something which they have no control over be an emergency? The Council didn't argue in court that the Tularemia meeting was such an emergency that they just had to meet that day, they argued that the Council has no power or authority over anything to do with Public Health, Tularemia or Boston University so it couldn't be considered a meeting since they were essentially meeting about nothing. Maybe this will become known, like all great Chess moves get named, as the Seinfeld Defense. Councilor Turner then went on for a few minutes without letting me get in a word edgewise, where he said that before you present anything to a group you work out the details before hand, and that I as a businessman get to meet behind closed doors, so he should be allowed as well. (except that in both cases it is my money at stake, and so I should be allowed to the meeting I think) He said he would come anywhere, anytime and defend his position on this, then finished with "I'm sick of this shit, Ok, take care" and hung up.

I ran into Joe Heisler at the Sonia Chang Diaz victory party last night and suggested a debate about transparency and the Open Meeting Law and the Walkowski report. He agreed to host it, if any Councilor would come on and support their actions and positions. Councilor Turner had given me a great idea.

So, how about it will any Councilors come on Joe Heisler's TV show and have a debate about how we can make the City more transparent, and defend them sending a report to the Attorney General which has the suggestion of exempting the Boston City Council from the Open Meeting Law?

PS. I just got a call from Justin Holmes from Councilor Feeney's office. He was good enough to clarify some information for me: which organizations the council is forwarding the report to, and the fact that the Rules Committee commissioned the report about 14 months ago. He referred me to Anne Hess Braga to get the information on what Mr. Walkowski was instructed to do by the Rules Committee.

Interestingly enough, the City Council did not inform corporate counsel that they commissioned the Walkowski report despite the ongoing Lawsuit about the OML. When the Walkowski report came out it was a surprise to them as well.

Victory for the good guys at last!

I'm very happy today because yesterday, Sonia Chang-Diaz unseated Dianne Wilkerson. I've supported Sonia since her last run in '06 and am hopeful about her ability to remain uncorrupted by the powers that be.

Sam Yoon to file legislation for more transparency

I called Sam Yoon's office today to see how he was going to vote on the Wolkowski proposal to eliminate the City Council from having to obey the Open Meeting Law. His staff person said that Sam was going to vote for more transparency.

She also said that he is going to file an ordinance(her words) for the City Council minutes to be better understood. She said that Sam feels the City Council minutes are very hard for citizens to understand and that he believes that citizens should be more involved. She said that even she can't understand the minutes of the City Council sometimes.

Good for Sam! I asked for them to email me Sam's proposed legislation. If I get that I will post it.

How to get City Council report on excluding themselves from open meeting law!

I saw on Universal Hub that Councilor Feeney had a press release about the Council always wanting transparency. So I called her office to get a copy of the Wolkowski report. I asked to have it electronically (you know, save trees, save postage, be able to post it so more people could see it and well, make it more transparent!!!) and they said they were only sending out hardcopies. I asked them to send me one.

I then again asked why they weren't making it available electronically and they said there was a concern that if they made it available electronically that it might be altered!!!!! Apparently, they have never heard of PDF's. I then suggested that they post it on the City website for all to see. They said they would take it under consideration. I asked to have Councilor Feeney give me a call to talk about how they could be more transparent about this.

Another good question is how long they have been working on this, and how much it costs. They supposedly commissioned this about 14 months ago. Mr. Wolkowski was paid $70K or so in 2007 according to the Herald website, who knows how much in 2008. I have put a FOIA request into the council to find out this information.

The total now must be around $150,000 that the council has spent fighting transparency and the Open Meeting Suits all without taking maybe an hour of their time and sitting down with Shirley Kressel, Kathleen Divine, and myself to discuss how they might avoid all these problems with Open Meeting Suits. Next time Councilor Flaherty is complaining about how much is being wasted on studies of a new City Hall, a good reporter should ask how much they have been wasting on this stuff.

We have offered to sit down with the council to try and work things out, but for three years they have refused. A real absence of leadership, when there is free taxpayer money to spend. Even George Bush came around to negotiating with North Korea.

Finally, if you want to see an example of what I consider to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law (could another lawsuit be far behind?) go to the posting board on the first floor of City Hall, in the upper left hand corner and read the posting for the rules committee.

The posting essentially says, and I'm paraphrasing: "This is the notice of the rules committee. We shall meet from time to time when we want to discuss the Open Meeting Law. We aren't going to tell you when or where. Consider yourself noticed."

If they are all about transparency, why not post the report on line to get citizen comments? I thought we were going green?

By the way, they have never been sued for talking in the hallways. That is just their smokescreen to try and exempt themselves from the law so they really have more backroom dealings.

Councilor Murphy indicates the City of Boston has 10,8 million bucks to spare!

In a quick session designed to give the city council staffs raises councilor Murphy testified that the city has 10.8 million dollars left over from fiscal 08 so there is plenty of money to give raises to all the city council staff. Approximately $350,000.

That should leave 10 million for the money the schools need, right?

Or maybe they will issue homeowners tax refund checks?

Watch it here: http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?id=577


Amazing to me in these tough times that the city has 10 million it doesn't know what to do with, although granted this is not a huge amount percentage wise.

kevin

Update on Open Meeting Law case McCrea v. Flaherty

Believe it or not, the McCrea v. Flaherty case is still going on, the City has spent about $100,000 of taxpayer money fighting it with no end in sight.

We have been trying to negotiate a settlement with the council on the remaining counts that they have not already been found guilty of. Our offer to them was to admit that the prior meetings had been in violation of the Open Meeting Law, and to work with them to establish a Sunshine Commission similar to the one in San Francisco to make sure that Boston had a best in the country policy towards transparency. In other words, we gave them a chance to really look good and to enact policy which would improve the interaction between the elected officials and the public. Here is their response from their attorney Mary Harris:

Dear Mr. McCrea, Ms. Devine, Ms. Kressel,

I write to inform you that the Council has met to consider your settlement proposal, and declines the terms you propose.

I am out of the office, returning on August 25. Perhaps we can speak to see if the area of disagreement can be narrowed, although any resolution that would include a requirement that the Council undertake commitments beyond which the court may impose after a hearing would be unacceptable to the Council. We believe your demand to establish a "Sunshine Ordinance Task Force" aimed at development of a San Francisco-like local law to be such a requirement.

We do remain willing to reach a compromise, if one can be agreed to within the parameters of the existing law.

Best regards,
Mary Jo Harris

Ward 9 Debate Sonia v. Dianne---Is there hope?

I attended the Ward 9 Debate on Monday night between Sonia Chang-Diaz and Dianne Wilkerson for our local State Senate seat. Neither candidate was particularly impressive from an objective point of view. A curt analysis would be Sonia saying "we need to do better" without specifying either what Dianne had not done well or what exactly she would do, and Dianne using the "these are the problems facing us" routine where she talks about everything that is wrong, while heads nod in agreement but she offers no solutions other than saying she will work hard.

Neither dog and pony show is particularly impressive to me. If Sonia wants to unseat an incumbent I think she should point out directly, not with innuendo, where her opponent has let the voters down. The obvious question for Dianne is if you know what the problems are, why haven't you fixed them in 15 years in the Senate and if someone is to blame, who is it?

Dianne is a master, like many politicians of taking both sides of an issue, and of saying one thing, meaning another, and denying something she just said. Some of her comments that left my head scratching are as follows:

"the Public Schools System doesn't work for the majority of its citizens", yet she is proud to be endorsed by Tom Menino who is responsible for those schools. If he isn't to blame, and she isn't to blame then who is responsible for those schools?

She said that 2/3 or our teachers are retiring in the next 3-5 years and we need to get new teachers and teachers certified in their subject areas. She then went into a tangent I couldn't understand about how parents can't teach their kids algebra. With her ongoing problems with the campaign finance people, I was thinking I certainly wouldn't want her teaching anyone algebara.

She repeatedly said she was the best person in the Senate to get to "20 plus 1" (a majority needed to pass) and said she was unhappy with the Governor about his campaign promises on CORI reform. So, the question is why hasn't she introduced the proper CORI reform and gotten it to pass if she is the most knowledgeable and most able to get it done. She is proud to be endorsed by Deval as well.

She said that the legislature was going to be called back into session to cut spending, and that she had "a hope and a prayer" that they won't cut education. I applaud her being very vehement on this point.

She also talked about economic development where she said "she won't miss any opportunity" to add jobs in her district. She didn't offer specifics but seemed to definitely be in the mode of "everyone is going to get some pork, and the system isn't fair, but I will work to get us some pork too" and that some pork for "women and people of color" is better than the no pork of the past, even though it currently isn't what it is supposed to be.

All in all, it was a night filled with a lot of words and not much substance and a soupcon of debate.

Who will save us, when we need fiscal responsibility, more transparency and renewed commitment to education.

As Sam is to Deval, Deval is to Obama

At my housewarming party last weekend a Globe reporter said to a few of us "wow, Sam Yoon has been a big disappointment." I replied to this person who had interviewed Sam a number of times, "are you kidding?, he is exactly what he said he was going to be in his campaign. I can't believe you thought anything else. Your own columnist Sam Ellis wrote that Sam only put out 'nerfball bromides'". He has continued to emit these bromides. All I ever heard him promise is that he was going to do better, but since he had never been in office it is easy to do better than nothing. I think Sam has been very honest in that regard.

These same campaign bromides I heard again with Deval Patrick. Together we can, what??? And now we have Obama, who says we need change without any specifics. What I have seen is changing of positions to meet changing political needs. No profiles in courage to me.

To me, Deval Patrick is Sam Yoon on steroids, and Obama is Deval Patrick on steroids. Of course, to me, each of them would be better than the probable Republican opposite but they aren't saying anything specific, just putting out a feel good message. Until voters demand real facts, promises and policies from their politicians this country will continue heading in its current direction.

response to Jacoby Globe editorial

Dear Jeff:

Nice article, but....

But, when will the Globe start doing serious journalism? When will the Globe stop endorsing these
guys such as Menino, Flaherty, etc.? The voters look to you, the press, for direction. I had a Globe reporter at
my house last night who when she interviewed my run for office asked fluff questions about who the Mayor's wife is,
and how far can a motorcycle be parked from a curb, when I wanted to talk about taxes, corruption and cronyism.

Look yourself in the mirror and tell it like it is. Without a serious commitment from the fourth estate, the other 3 get out of control. Why don't you write about how the firefighter pension issue is not the fault of the firefighters, it is the result of the person running the show: Menino and the City Council who should, as our elected officials be watching out for our dollars.

The same goes for the state legislature, the treasurer(s) and the governors(s) who oversaw the big dig, etc.

Sincerely,
Kevin McCrea

Giants Win!!!

The 7 to 10 year old team I have been with for the last 5 years has won again. The South End Giants played through a rainstorm and a tough Mets team, to win the championship 3 to 1. The Giants haven't been defeated in the playoffs for 4 years in a row now!

Congratulations to the team, coach Johnny and Mario, and all the kids who learned and grew all season long, were great teammates, and a pleasure for me to be around.

Mothers Day Baseball

A pitchers duel turned into high scoring run fest on Mother's Day at Roche Park.
It started out as a pitching duel between, Joshua Perez of the Giants and Dyvine of the Mariners.
A bases loaded walk to God scratched home the first run in the second inning by the the Giants. In the bottom of the third the Mariners were now facing Keson John and they took the lead with their patience at the plate scoring 4 runs despite just one ball being put into play.

In the top of the fourth the Giants put on their rally caps and erupted for 8 runs, led by a grand slam by Jason Pepin, backed up by a Ryan Hernandez home run. But the shorthanded Mariners, who were down to 8 players due to an injury, came back in the bottom of the fourth to tie the game at 9-9 again with patience at the plate but this time with a couple of run scoring singles by Dante and Dyvine. The Giants brought out Jason Pepin on the mound to get the final out of the inning.

As the sun faded away, the Mariners brought in Francisco in relief for the final inning. The Giants rallied again with Josh Perez getting the big hit, a triple to right. Jason came back in the bottom of the fifth to close the victory with two strikeouts and a nice play at the mound to throw a runner out at first.

On such a tension filled game, that was well played by both teams, it almost goes without saying that

GOD SCORED THE WINNING RUN!


BIG thanks to my mom for being my coach and getting me to all the games when I was a kid. And thanks to all the moms of my Giants who are so supportive of our team.

Love,
Kevin

Excellent analysis of the civic forum

http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/

Problems with management at Boston Public Schools?

The Budget Crisis That Wasn't

If you had read the papers in the early spring and had a child in the Boston Public Schools, you may have lost sleep worrying that the BPS was in desperate financial straits. Parents can rest easy. Unbeknownst to most taxpayers, Boston is now one of the wealthiest school districts in the entire United States based on expenditures per pupil.

According to the state's website Boston's school budget per pupil is the same as Weston's and thousands of dollars higher than "wealthy" districts like Brookline, Hingham, Newton, Wellesley and Winchester. For a full list of where Boston stands relative to other communities in Massachusetts, click here: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ppx.aspx and then click twice on the column headed "expenditures per pupil".

While the rest of the state lays off teachers, adds fees and cuts school services, thanks to additional staffing and salary increases, Boston's education budget will increase 5.7% next year and this is further complemented by an additional 1-2% drop in the number of students meaning that per capita expenses will increase in 2009 by roughly 7% or almost $50 million.

So whence the massive shortfall?


There are many problems in the BPS. It has become painfully obvious that more money is not the solution to these problems as Boston perennially ranks in the bottom 5% on statewide standardized test scores in spite of massive spending increases over the past 15 years.

Open Meeting Law victory

I heard from my sister while I was driving home that we won a victory in the Open Meeting Lawsuit victory. Since Mccrea v. Flaherty was appealed by the City Council it will now be case law that the way that Michael Flaherty and the City Council interprets the Open Meeting Law is illegal, and the way that Kathleen Devine, Shirley Kressel and I interpret it is correct.

Of course, the Globe and Herald had two horrible articles in the paper today about it, and they clearly did not read nor understand the ruling. We won outright on some matters, and on the other matters the court took the time to explicitly deny the arguments(excuses) of the council as to why they were violating the law.

What the appeals court did do was agree that the City Council should be allowed an opportunity to present more evidence as to why their meetings were legal, even though the council was the party that moved for Summary Judgment.

So far, the council has spent approximately $50,000 to $100,000 of legal fees to fight for their right to have 6 members go into a room to discuss matters, then have those 6 leave a room and 6 more enter a room to discuss matters. Then when they have sorted everything out, not in the public eye, they will rubber stamp a decision at a council meeting.

Of course, they have rejected all of our olive branches to stop the litigation and try and craft a progressive, country leading open meeting policy that would really include the public.

And they wonder why only 11 percent or so voted in the election.

Message on foreclosure from Sen. Wilkerson

April 11, 2008



Dear Community Leader:



As the State Senator for your district, I recognize you as someone who interfaces with many residents every day. As you know, we are in the midst of a housing crisis like never seen before across Massachusetts! I know from the escalating number of constituents calling and walking in to our office every day that our district has been especially hard hit. I want to let you know what we are working on in the hope that you could pass the information on and be supportive of our efforts. Just in the past several weeks, between February 15th and April 3rd :



There have been 5,960 foreclosure petitions filed across Massachusetts (730 in Boston)
There have been 4,215 auctioned properties in Massachusetts


The foreclosure crisis is destroying whole communities not just here in Boston, but all around Massachusetts. If we continue at this pace, we will far surpass the 29,000+ record-number of foreclosures in Massachusetts for 2007.



Recently, I filed three bills in the Senate to protect tenants, mandate judicial foreclosure and to create a six month moratorium on new foreclosures. In order for these bills to gain traction, I need your support around the community for this package of legislation and for you to serve as a resource for the families, homeowners and tenants whose lives are being devastated every day by this crisis. Here are the summaries of the bills I’ve filed:



An Act to Require Judicial Foreclosure – Sen. 2696

This bill will enable Massachusetts to join 29 other states in requiring that a court approve foreclosures. Homeowners should have a day in court and an opportunity to raise defenses before they are stripped of the biggest asset they are likely to own in their lives. If you've been reading the daily newspapers over the last several weeks, you know that homes are being auctioned and sold before foreclosures are even complete. Even if lenders violate the law or make errors in how much money is actually owed, borrowers currently have no rights. This must change.



An Act Relative to a Temporary Moratorium on Foreclosures – Sen. 2697

This bill will provide for a 6 month moratorium on foreclosures to keep homeowners from losing their homes while more comprehensive solutions are effected on the state level. During this moratorium, a commission will be established to make recommendations that will help residents of Massachusetts deal with the crisis. This time will also provide an opportunity for mortgage holders to work with borrowers and find solutions that will help them remain in their homes.



An Act Requiring Just Cause for Eviction in Foreclosed Properties – Sen. 2698

This bill would protect from eviction tenants who are current in their rent and otherwise occupying a property lawfully after foreclosure, in other words, requiring just cause for evictions. If the foreclosing lender does not have just cause to evict, the tenants can remain, paying reasonable rents and abiding by the standard rules of tenancies. This protection will also protect municipalities as they scramble to address vacant and unsupervised properties which can become public safety hazards through burst pipes, fires, vandalism, and disrepair due to neglect. This bill will keep people in their homes and help to stabilize neighborhoods during the current crisis.



I need your help to let others know that activity is occurring. These bills can only pass if we work together to make the case that we have to provide help to homeowners and tenants and not just the big lenders who are being bailed out on the federal level.



In the meantime, if you have clients, constituents, patients, neighbors etc, who need assistance with their mortgage and are dealing with pending foreclosure, I encourage you to put them in touch with either the City of Boston’s Foreclosure Prevention Initiative by calling 617-635-HOME (617-635-4663) or the Legal Advocacy Resource Center (LARC), which provides referrals on a case-specific basis to appropriate groups. You can contact LARC by calling 617-603-1700.



If you have any additional questions or would like any more information about bills that I have filed please don’t hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,



Dianne Wilkerson

State Senator

Second Suffolk District


Wesley J. Ritchie

Director of Policy

Office of Senator Dianne Wilkerson

Second Suffolk District

617-722-1673

Getting Inner City school kids motivated

Low-income urban students know they attend substandard, second-tier schools that lack the technology, resources and extracurricular programs commonplace in schools of more affluent communities. And yet we continue to expect these students to prioritize education when budgetary and funding inequities demonstrate that urban education is neither a local, state, or national priority. Why should students on the Westside of Chicago not have access to the same resources, technology, and programming that is certainly offered at our nation’s “Top 100 High Schools?” Engaging technology programs like Hoops High demonstrate that attendance and (thus) academic performance will greatly improve in urban schools that are able to offer a range of exciting extracurricular classes directed at both the needs and the interests of the students.


Although this is exactly what I've been saying for years, it was reiterated in the New York Times today.

Why should teenagers care about something, when the adults who tell them to care, don't care about it themselves?

Dance Crew from Dorchester area could win MTV contest, please vote!

A friend of mine, Kevin Barry, is helping this Dorchester Group maybe win this MTV award which could lead to great things. I really salute Kevin who is so concerned with the state of his neighborhood and the ineffective leadership, but who goes out and does what is really required to make a neighborhood 'awesome'.


“AMERICA’S BEST DANCE CREW”
Could live in Boston!
STATUS QUO Dance Crew

From Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury

Competing in MTV’s Grand Finale – The Final 2 of
“Randy Jackson Presents America’s Best Dance Crew”
Let’s Represent Boston – Support Boston’s Youth by voting for Status Quo to win it all - bring home a Championship to Boston


Watch the Live Finale on MTV Thursday March 27th10pm

Vote for Status Quo to win the dance competition and represent Boston.
Vote as Often as you can. Vote! Vote! Vote Again!
Vote Now, until 9:00 pm Thursday, March 27th
1. Call toll free: 1-866-ULove01
2. Cell phone text message #1, 23882
3. Vote online: www.mtv.com

“The best tricks of any dance crew”

Vote from 11pm Thurs March 20th until 9pm Thurs March 27th
See www.cityofboston.gov for profile of Status Quo and contest


Again, another weekly reminder to vote for the hometown boys from Boston!! I thank you all for your efforts last week as Status Quo was #1 in amount of votes in the last round.
I hope you were able to catch them in their performances last night/Thursday; if not check MTV over the weekend. I am sure they will play the reruns!
Looks like it will be a tight race for the finals so try and remember to vote again this week. Information is below and attached for your convenience on how you can help bring another championship team to Boston!!!

Back to the Blog

Well, Clara and I are back in Boston, now living in Fort Hill in Roxbury. We like it up here, quiet, nice neighbors, lots of parking. Plus, we have the same trash filled streets we were used to in the south end.

A few lines in the sand (as the Mayor of Newton would say):

1) I am opposed to casino's in MA. Disclosure: I gamble, Vegas, Ecuador, etc.
Especially in Boston. I could live with one resort casino in a remote area as a
compromise, but gambling is not the basis of a progressive economy.

2) There should be no agreement with the Fire Union without drug testing.


My moles have been sending me stuff as usual such as:

1) Why hasn't the new superintendent and her right hand man registered their car in
MA yet? Maybe Mayor Menino has already explained there are two sets of rules in this state: one for the taxpayers who have to register within 30 days, and one for the rest of the "in" crowd. Allegedly they still have their Tennessee license plates. She has found the time to write the Mayor a check for his campaign however.

2) Why is Michael Flaherty and the City Council spending $600 an hour for attorney Rory Fitzpatrick to appeal the Open Meeting Law decision against them. The fine they received was only $11,000 but they may end up spending $50-$100,000 of taxpayer money to appeal the case. At the appeals court hearing Mr. Fitzpatrick told the panel of 3 judges that what Flaherty, Feeney, and Co. did wasn't right but it was legal. If it wasn't right, than why not just pay the fine and stop doing it as opposed to spending so much money defending something your own attorney says isn't right?

3) Does the head of the trash department really live in Boston, or does he just park his city car in Hyde Park and then take his own car home to Westwood or another suburb? Also, did he have anything to do with the Capitol Management waste disposal company which has come out of nowhere to be a huge player and receive maybe a 5 year contract??? Is that his son as a vice-president at Capitol?

Did I miss much while I was gone? Keep the cronyism, corruption and collusion tips coming.

Mayoral Poem

Taxes are too high,
Services are too low,
The Schools are terrible,
The Mayor has got to Go!


The outgoing Library chief says the Mayor is 'anti-intellectual'. The Mayor has no comment. I wonder if any Boston intellectuals will step in and defend the Mayor. Larry Dicara and Billy Bulger don't count, we'd like to see an independent person say that the Mayor has clothes.