This week Tom Menino decided to comment a bit on my positions on his absence of foresight and leadership on schools, funding and staffing levels. He has not commented on the fact that he has given away hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer property for free. He clearly is not happy that I have been telling people that we have hired 1200 new employees (7% increase) in the last 5 years and only 200 are cops and 75 are teachers.
From the South End News:
“Menino disagreed with McCrea’s assertions in a statement sent to South End News on Feb. 10.
"I have said and continue to say that education is an absolute priority and protecting classrooms from deep cuts has always been my goal," said Menino. "Unfortunately, we can’t tighten our belts out of this unprecedented global economic crisis, and there is no singular solution to our troubles. I’ve asked the Legislature to give Boston the tools it needs to raise much needed revenue at a local level, and my administration will continue to meet with City unions to negotiate a one-year wage freeze that could protect core services and save hundreds of jobs.
"Superintendent Johnson and I firmly believe in working with students, parents, and families to address the unreasonable transportation costs that put money into the gas tanks of underused school buses rather than classrooms. I am also hopeful that our partners at the federal level will craft a responsible economic recovery plan that prioritizes critical investments in our schools."
Menino spokesperson Nick Martin further addressed McCrea’s statistics in an e-mail Feb. 10, saying he was "not sure what source" McCrea had cited.
"[T]he Boston Municipal Research Bureau put out a report last July showing that between 2004 [and] 2008, BPS hires accounted for approximately 64 percent of new positions," wrote Martin. He also talked about fire fighter hirings.
The Mayor’s spokesman is comparing apples to oranges, an old political trick designed to confuse the issue. I am talking about teachers and police officers, I never once mentioned fire fighters. I also believe actual teachers in the classroom are more important than the multiple bureaucratic layers of administration above them. Before we cut teachers, we need to cut administration.
Here is the report Menino's spokesman is referring to.
And here is the conclusion of the report: “ Conclusion: The escalating growth of Boston’s employee health insurance and pensions costs and projected future benefit expenses are reasons enough to be especially concerned about an increase of 680 positions over the past two years.”
In other words, the report Menino cites already warned him last year that these problems were coming. His response: budget for 142 new hires and pay raises for all his staff!
My research team has additional follow up:
1) The BMRB report cites 16,049 employees in 2004 (city budget records cite 16,048) and the 2009 budget calls for 17,217 employees or an increase of 1,168 employees since 2004 - your quote of a 1200 employee increase (approximately) or 7.3% over 5 years is accurate.
2) Based on the Globe report below, the claim of 200 additional police is accurate - January 1, 2009 article in the Boston Globe –
3) The city puts 1/1/2009 teacher headcount at 4,576 in the 2009 budget. The March 2004 "BPS At a Glance" puts the number of teachers in the system for the 2003-2004 school year at 4,488 (general fund only) - a difference of 88. Therefore by a count of 1 teacher, 100 additional teachers would be slightly more accurate than 75 additional teachers if you are citing numbers rounded to the nearest 25.
(Please note that all budgets prior to 2008 have been removed from the city’s website greatly exacerbating the difficulty of performing future budget analysis and cross checking of various versions of the budget which are subject to revision.) Not very transparent of the city!
Menino's spokesman in the SEN article isn't wrong - it's just apples and oranges - he's talking total hires - we are talking about teachers. They've hired a lot of people - but only 100 of them or so are teachers - depending on what numbers you look at. Roughly 650 of the hires in the school dept aren't teachers.
So, I stand corrected. My new statement is as follows:
The Mayor has hired about 1200 people in the last 5 years. 200 are police officers, 100 are teachers. Why are we talking about laying them off? Let’s look at the other 900 staff positions first before we start talking about laying off teachers and eliminating programs.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
School Poll Results:
By a 2 to 1 margin, people believed that we should maintain or even increase school funding as opposed to those who thought we should cut school funding.
38 to 19
Thanks for voting!
38 to 19
Thanks for voting!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Making Schools a priority
I attended the Wednesday joint meeting of the school committee and the ways and means committee with Superintendent Johnson and her budget staff. They explained to the council what I have blogged about. The Mayor is saying to all departments "you need to cut 7% of your budget". Sam Yoon started to ask the important questions that I and many BPS parents have been asking, essentially: don't we need to make a value judgment about what areas to cut and what not to cut?
Sam is absolutely on the right path here. I hope he comes around to my position that no teaching jobs should be cut at BPS. Administration and other less important jobs maybe. Cuts in other departments if needed. But education needs to be our number one priority, and we can't be cutting language, arts, and Advanced Placement programs.
The more that teachers, parents, and elected officials like Sam Yoon insist, like I do, that we need to have quality schools in all our neighborhoods, the more difficult it will be for Mayor Menino to cut funding for education.
Sam is absolutely on the right path here. I hope he comes around to my position that no teaching jobs should be cut at BPS. Administration and other less important jobs maybe. Cuts in other departments if needed. But education needs to be our number one priority, and we can't be cutting language, arts, and Advanced Placement programs.
The more that teachers, parents, and elected officials like Sam Yoon insist, like I do, that we need to have quality schools in all our neighborhoods, the more difficult it will be for Mayor Menino to cut funding for education.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Mayor not being transparent about answering budget questions.
I received a call from a newspaper editor yesterday saying that the Mayor is disagreeing with my numbers. The Mayor has said he will be transparent about the budget, and that his staff will answer questions. I spoke to Lisa Signori when she presented her initial budget numbers to the city council and she said she would answer questions.
Well, I sent them a few straightforward questions by email (they requested email) and 15 days later: No Response. The email as follows:
"Please forward me the email for Lisa.
Rhonda N. Perch"
"Thanks Rhonda:
1) In her presentation she said our interest income will be down 20 million dollars. What is the source of the principle of that 20 million dollars? How much is it, and where is it kept? How much did we receive in FY 2009 and how much is she projecting in FY 2010.
2) She indicates 11 million additional dollars in interest payment and debt payment. What is our debt payment amount, how much debt do we have, and what interest are we paying in FY 2009 vs. FY 2010.
3) The $55 million dollars for additional salaries she projects is a 5% increase of 2009 vs. 2010. Why does she project a 5% increase in salary, is that what the union contracts called for?
thank you,
kevin mccrea"
It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that we are both paying higher interest rates on the money we owe, and getting less for the money we have. There could be explanations due to the short term turmoil in the market, but if they won't be open, honest and transparent about what the numbers are, it makes one doubt the veracity.
If we are paying higher rates, we need to be lobbying President Obama and Congress to give some of this trillion or two trillion in money to municipalities to they can reduce the interest they owe on their long term rates. If the Fed is loaning money at less than 1 percent to banks, surely we could get very low rates for the cities.
In these tough economic times, we need to look everywhere to save money. The Mayor's lack of transparency makes it difficult to believe that we can't afford to keep all of our teachers.
Well, I sent them a few straightforward questions by email (they requested email) and 15 days later: No Response. The email as follows:
"Please forward me the email for Lisa.
Rhonda N. Perch"
"Thanks Rhonda:
1) In her presentation she said our interest income will be down 20 million dollars. What is the source of the principle of that 20 million dollars? How much is it, and where is it kept? How much did we receive in FY 2009 and how much is she projecting in FY 2010.
2) She indicates 11 million additional dollars in interest payment and debt payment. What is our debt payment amount, how much debt do we have, and what interest are we paying in FY 2009 vs. FY 2010.
3) The $55 million dollars for additional salaries she projects is a 5% increase of 2009 vs. 2010. Why does she project a 5% increase in salary, is that what the union contracts called for?
thank you,
kevin mccrea"
It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that we are both paying higher interest rates on the money we owe, and getting less for the money we have. There could be explanations due to the short term turmoil in the market, but if they won't be open, honest and transparent about what the numbers are, it makes one doubt the veracity.
If we are paying higher rates, we need to be lobbying President Obama and Congress to give some of this trillion or two trillion in money to municipalities to they can reduce the interest they owe on their long term rates. If the Fed is loaning money at less than 1 percent to banks, surely we could get very low rates for the cities.
In these tough economic times, we need to look everywhere to save money. The Mayor's lack of transparency makes it difficult to believe that we can't afford to keep all of our teachers.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Bob Terrell not running for at large seat
Bob has let me know he has decided not to run for an at large seat. He has asked me to blog to let people know that he will be running for an office sometime in the future and that he intends to keep informing people about the problems with the BRA. I am sorry that he won't be running as he is very knowledgeable about the abuse of power by that agency, that I have been speaking about for years.
Superintendent Johnson picks up on my call to change the light bulbs!
Cross posted at Blue Mass Group:
Changing light bulbs does save teaching jobs (+)
by: KevinMcCrea
Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 07:38:32 AM EST
[edit diary]
When I posted here announcing my plans to run for the Mayor of Boston, stomv (whose well informed comments I've followed and appreciated for some time) took me to task for being behind the curve for suggesting we change the light bulbs to save money.
Well, I feel a bit vindicated by School Superintendent Johnson's preliminary budget for the schools.
More below the fold:
KevinMcCrea :: Changing light bulbs does save teaching jobs
In her preliminary budget she says "The proposed budget also includes a number of innovative cost saving measures. For example, the district plans to replace all of the lightbulbs in every Boston school and central office with longer lasting, more energy efficient bulbs. The new bulbs will reduce the district's energy bills by nearly $3 million each year."
I don't want to disparage stomv, who clearly is more educated than I am about this issue. However, one of my favorite sayings is Mark Twain:
'Common Sense doesn't seem to be that Common'. We might think 99 percent of the bulbs have been changed, but they haven't.
We debated about whether to put that line about lightbulbs in our press release because it does seem so simple, and would invite ridicule such as we received. On the other hand, it does need to be done, because we are not as efficient as we need to be.
The key point that I would like to get across is that if I am elected, that making both simple and long term plans to cut our energy use are going to be a major part of what I work on. I am open enough to realize I don't have all the answers and I invite comments and ideas.
That 3 million in savings according to the administration is about 30 teaching jobs. For that, I'm willing to change light bulbs.
Changing light bulbs does save teaching jobs (+)
by: KevinMcCrea
Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 07:38:32 AM EST
[edit diary]
When I posted here announcing my plans to run for the Mayor of Boston, stomv (whose well informed comments I've followed and appreciated for some time) took me to task for being behind the curve for suggesting we change the light bulbs to save money.
Well, I feel a bit vindicated by School Superintendent Johnson's preliminary budget for the schools.
More below the fold:
KevinMcCrea :: Changing light bulbs does save teaching jobs
In her preliminary budget she says "The proposed budget also includes a number of innovative cost saving measures. For example, the district plans to replace all of the lightbulbs in every Boston school and central office with longer lasting, more energy efficient bulbs. The new bulbs will reduce the district's energy bills by nearly $3 million each year."
I don't want to disparage stomv, who clearly is more educated than I am about this issue. However, one of my favorite sayings is Mark Twain:
'Common Sense doesn't seem to be that Common'. We might think 99 percent of the bulbs have been changed, but they haven't.
We debated about whether to put that line about lightbulbs in our press release because it does seem so simple, and would invite ridicule such as we received. On the other hand, it does need to be done, because we are not as efficient as we need to be.
The key point that I would like to get across is that if I am elected, that making both simple and long term plans to cut our energy use are going to be a major part of what I work on. I am open enough to realize I don't have all the answers and I invite comments and ideas.
That 3 million in savings according to the administration is about 30 teaching jobs. For that, I'm willing to change light bulbs.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Fire Union takes the Mayor to Task
Fire Union Official Kelly says he has "No respect or Faith in Menino".
The Mayor's failure of leadership on wage freeze
In the news today, the Herald reports that the Mayor and his staff are taking a 3% pay cut. They report that the savings of $122,000 will basically offset the raises just handed out last August.
But, this is not true. The raises handed out last August come to more than $148,000. So, they are still making more money than they were before. This also does not include the bonuses the Mayor handed out of 10 months of retroactive pay.
Meanwhile, according to the Mayor's own numbers he is projecting a 55 million dollar increase in the pay of the city workers according to the contracts that he negotiated. This is about a 5% increase.
To sum up, the Mayor is going to lead by taking a 3% pay cut while he asks all of the city workers to take a 5% pay cut. That is not leadership, that is absence of leadership.
He should take the same pay cut he is asking the unions to take, admit that he negotiated bad contracts, and rescind the bonuses he handed out to his inner circle. Then maybe we would take him seriously that there is a serious budget crisis. We need someone to lead by example. Why not take a measly $100,000 for the year and save one teaching position? That would send a statement about how much he cares about education.
But, this is not true. The raises handed out last August come to more than $148,000. So, they are still making more money than they were before. This also does not include the bonuses the Mayor handed out of 10 months of retroactive pay.
Meanwhile, according to the Mayor's own numbers he is projecting a 55 million dollar increase in the pay of the city workers according to the contracts that he negotiated. This is about a 5% increase.
To sum up, the Mayor is going to lead by taking a 3% pay cut while he asks all of the city workers to take a 5% pay cut. That is not leadership, that is absence of leadership.
He should take the same pay cut he is asking the unions to take, admit that he negotiated bad contracts, and rescind the bonuses he handed out to his inner circle. Then maybe we would take him seriously that there is a serious budget crisis. We need someone to lead by example. Why not take a measly $100,000 for the year and save one teaching position? That would send a statement about how much he cares about education.
More information on the budget
I would like to thank the financial officer for the Boston Public Schools, John McDonough, who returned a call to me at almost 7 pm last night. That is the type of hard work and responsiveness that I can truly respect.
My basic question has been why is the Mayor proposing a 47 million dollar year over year cut in the school budget?
The answer, as I understand it, is as follows. The Mayor has gone to all of his departments and requested that they propose a budget with a 7 percent decrease. (Already we see how he tries to hype the problem in the press-back in December we heard news of 15% cuts: twice the size of what he actually was proposing. The budget doesn't change that fast and by that much, we need careful honest analysis, not hyperbole)
This was confirmed to me last night as I was going to community meetings across the city. At an event at Tavalo a great new pizza place at Ashmont in Dorchester, I had a nice talk with a gentleman who works in the Purchasing Department at City Hall. He reiterated that the Mayor has told all the departments to present budgets seven percent lower than last year. (the event was great, many thoughtful, interested citizens from three different neighborhood organizations. Linda Dorcena Forry, Maureen Feeney and Charles Yancey all made appearances as well. People are VERY concerned about the schools which is encouraging)
I asked John why we needed to cut the budget by seven percent across the board, and in general terms he explained how long term responsible costs such as pension and health care are eating up the budget.
As I wrote about in my South End News piece, "Tom Menino's Ponzi Scheme" these costs were predictable and a result of the Mayor negotiating bad contracts. You can not continue to give 5% raises across the board (as he has proposed in this years budget) when Proposition 2.5 limits incoming revenue and the cost of living goes up on average about 3% a year. It does not make fiscal sense. On top of that he has hired 1200 workers (ironically enough a 7% increase) in the last 5 years, only 200 are police and 75 are teachers. Why do we need 7 percent more workers when the city population is essentially stable? We need to look at what those other 925 workers are doing before we talk about laying off teachers and police officers.
With me as Mayor, we will have an open, transparent budget process that puts education and public safety first, and will not engage in histrionics to divert the public from the real issues.
My basic question has been why is the Mayor proposing a 47 million dollar year over year cut in the school budget?
The answer, as I understand it, is as follows. The Mayor has gone to all of his departments and requested that they propose a budget with a 7 percent decrease. (Already we see how he tries to hype the problem in the press-back in December we heard news of 15% cuts: twice the size of what he actually was proposing. The budget doesn't change that fast and by that much, we need careful honest analysis, not hyperbole)
This was confirmed to me last night as I was going to community meetings across the city. At an event at Tavalo a great new pizza place at Ashmont in Dorchester, I had a nice talk with a gentleman who works in the Purchasing Department at City Hall. He reiterated that the Mayor has told all the departments to present budgets seven percent lower than last year. (the event was great, many thoughtful, interested citizens from three different neighborhood organizations. Linda Dorcena Forry, Maureen Feeney and Charles Yancey all made appearances as well. People are VERY concerned about the schools which is encouraging)
I asked John why we needed to cut the budget by seven percent across the board, and in general terms he explained how long term responsible costs such as pension and health care are eating up the budget.
As I wrote about in my South End News piece, "Tom Menino's Ponzi Scheme" these costs were predictable and a result of the Mayor negotiating bad contracts. You can not continue to give 5% raises across the board (as he has proposed in this years budget) when Proposition 2.5 limits incoming revenue and the cost of living goes up on average about 3% a year. It does not make fiscal sense. On top of that he has hired 1200 workers (ironically enough a 7% increase) in the last 5 years, only 200 are police and 75 are teachers. Why do we need 7 percent more workers when the city population is essentially stable? We need to look at what those other 925 workers are doing before we talk about laying off teachers and police officers.
With me as Mayor, we will have an open, transparent budget process that puts education and public safety first, and will not engage in histrionics to divert the public from the real issues.
Monday, February 09, 2009
3 more videos-My background, My goals for the City, and an Exposure of City Hall Waste at Hayward Place
We have posted three more videos. The first two are essentially my introduction to the citizens of Boston. The first is my background. The second is part of my stump speech where I describe why I am running.
Finally, I have a video where I describe the waste, fraud and abuse at Hayward Place where Menino and City Hall have given away a piece of property worth at least 23 million dollars for free. The citizens have received nothing from this bad deal.
Thanks for watching!
Finally, I have a video where I describe the waste, fraud and abuse at Hayward Place where Menino and City Hall have given away a piece of property worth at least 23 million dollars for free. The citizens have received nothing from this bad deal.
Thanks for watching!
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Our first Youtube video has been posted! (NO MIXER)
We have posted our first in a series of videos on YouTube which will highlight my background and positions on the Mayoral race.
For those of you who like a bit of comedy with your politics, check out the Re-MIX of the Flaherty announcement by John Tobin's video guy: Steve Garfield.
I do believe laughter is the best medicine.
Look for our next YouTube video about the money being given away by Menino and City Hall at Hayward Place.
For those of you who like a bit of comedy with your politics, check out the Re-MIX of the Flaherty announcement by John Tobin's video guy: Steve Garfield.
I do believe laughter is the best medicine.
Look for our next YouTube video about the money being given away by Menino and City Hall at Hayward Place.
Sam Yoon is in the race.
Sam called me to let me know he is in the race for Mayor. He and I look forward to a vigorous race based on thoughts and ideas on how we bring progress to the city.
Globe Editorial on Transparency, and Flaherty, Yoon don't respond to Public Records Requests
There is an editorial in today's Sunday Globe about the way public officials in Massachusetts ignore or disobey the Public Records Laws. By Law, officials must respond to Public Records Requests within 10 days.
The timing of today's editorial is serendipitous because just yesterday it had been 10 days since I made similar Public Records Requests to Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon. Neither one of them has responded. It is one thing to talk about transparency, and it is another one to live up to it.
My requests are as follows:
to Michael.F.Flaherty@cityofboston.gov
cc electkevin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:49 AM
subject Constituent question and Public Records Request
mailed-by gmail.com details Jan 28 (11 days ago)
Dear Councilor Flaherty,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
2) I would like to request a copy of the all paychecks of your city council staff members for the last two weeks in November, and all the weeks of December for the following years: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Kevin McCrea
sam.yoon@cityofboston.gov
cc electkevin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:50 AM
subject Constituent question and Public Records Request
mailed-by gmail Jan 28 (11 days ago)
Dear Councilor Yoon,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
2) I would like to request a copy of the all paychecks of your city council staff members for the last two weeks in November, and all the weeks of December for the following years: 2006, 2007, 2008.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Kevin McCrea
The reason for my public records request was to see if Councilor Flaherty or Councilor Yoon participated in giving their employees bonuses, which public sector employees are not supposed to get. The Boston Globe did a story last year about how the City Council was secretly giving pay raises beyond the prescribed salary ranges for its employees. All the councilors, including Flaherty and Yoon have been a part of this, any one of them could have stood up and said "we can't be giving raises beyond the salary ranges while our children don't have proper school supplies in our schools" and asked for a public debate, but not one of the thirteen protested.
Just like the greatness of the First Amendment is not that it protects speech that you agree with, it protects speech that you don't agree with, so too with transparency. It doesn't hold water for Sam and Michael to decry the back room deals and lack of access provided by the BRA and the Mayor and then to not obey the law themselves.
The timing of today's editorial is serendipitous because just yesterday it had been 10 days since I made similar Public Records Requests to Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon. Neither one of them has responded. It is one thing to talk about transparency, and it is another one to live up to it.
My requests are as follows:
to Michael.F.Flaherty@cityofboston.gov
cc electkevin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:49 AM
subject Constituent question and Public Records Request
mailed-by gmail.com details Jan 28 (11 days ago)
Dear Councilor Flaherty,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
2) I would like to request a copy of the all paychecks of your city council staff members for the last two weeks in November, and all the weeks of December for the following years: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Kevin McCrea
sam.yoon@cityofboston.gov
cc electkevin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:50 AM
subject Constituent question and Public Records Request
mailed-by gmail Jan 28 (11 days ago)
Dear Councilor Yoon,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
2) I would like to request a copy of the all paychecks of your city council staff members for the last two weeks in November, and all the weeks of December for the following years: 2006, 2007, 2008.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Kevin McCrea
The reason for my public records request was to see if Councilor Flaherty or Councilor Yoon participated in giving their employees bonuses, which public sector employees are not supposed to get. The Boston Globe did a story last year about how the City Council was secretly giving pay raises beyond the prescribed salary ranges for its employees. All the councilors, including Flaherty and Yoon have been a part of this, any one of them could have stood up and said "we can't be giving raises beyond the salary ranges while our children don't have proper school supplies in our schools" and asked for a public debate, but not one of the thirteen protested.
Just like the greatness of the First Amendment is not that it protects speech that you agree with, it protects speech that you don't agree with, so too with transparency. It doesn't hold water for Sam and Michael to decry the back room deals and lack of access provided by the BRA and the Mayor and then to not obey the law themselves.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Althea Garrison weighs in on opening up the ballot and transparency!
Boston City Paper
January 31, 2009
GARRISON LASHES
OUT AT SECRECY
OF CITY COUNCIL
SAYS THEY SECRETLY INCREASED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO RUN FOR ELECTION TO BOSTON CITY COUNCIL
THANKS KEVIN MCCREA FOR TAKING THE COUNCIL TO COURT AND STOPPING THEIR SECRET, CLOSED DOOR SESSIONS
MC CREA ALSO INVOLVED IN OTHER COURT CASE THAT PUT HUNDREDS OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREET
BY ALTHEA GARRISON
FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Is government by the people and for the people? Or is it by the Boston City Council and only for the Boston City Council? Did you know that the Council worked in secrecy to change the amount of signatures that one needs to run for an At-Large or District seat?
Before they SECRETLY changed the law, a candidate for one of the four At-Large City Council seats needed only five hundred (500) signatures. Now, they need 1500 CERTIFIED signatures and all District candidates need two hundred (200).
No public hearings were held on this matter and thus the reason for my question: Is it government by the thirteen Boston City Councilors and for them only? CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
GARRISON BLAMES MURPHY
FOR CHANGING SIGNATURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNCIL
Two years ago, At-Large Councilor Stephen Murphy worked to change this election law. This year he worked SECRETLY to accomplish his mission. The public does not want more corrupt, unaccountable government. They want more open government - by and for the people.
This was a cowardly act and the councilors who participated in it must be defeated in the September Preliminary and November Final elections. I am strongly against Mr. Murphy’s cowardly act because changing the amount of signatures one needs to run for an At-Large Boston City Council Seat was one of the proudest pieces of legislation I supported when I was a State Representative and a member of the Commonwealth Election Law Committee. We reduced the original 1500 signature requirement to 500 signatures in order that more citizens could seek public office. It is no easy task for anyone to go out and ask enough voters to place their name in nomination and obtain 500 certifiable signatures to be on the ballot. Mr. Murphy just cut the legs out of the main objective which was to get more citizens to seek public office.
Who is the Boston City Council representing? Surely, not the hard working taxpayers who pay their salaries. We need real change on the Boston City Council and I hope that every Boston City Councilor facing a challenger this fall will be kicked out of office and out of their comfort zone. They are not accountable to the people and now is the time to make lasting changes on the Boston City Council, with new people.
All these councilors want to do is to hold on to power and not answer to the people paying the taxes. We need to clean out City Hall with new dedicated patriots who don’t mind answering to the public and being held accountable by the public for their actions. The current councilors aren’t being held accountable and they are non-responsive to the public.
I would like to thank Kevin McCrea for throwing his hat in the ring for Mayor and I wish him well. I thank him also for standing up to the Boston City Council on the Open Meeting Law and winning the court case.
McCrea was also involved in a prior law suit with other concerned citizens which was also won and resulted in the City of Boston hiring hundreds of new police officers to meet minimum staffing requirements as required by the City of Boston Charter.
January 31, 2009
GARRISON LASHES
OUT AT SECRECY
OF CITY COUNCIL
SAYS THEY SECRETLY INCREASED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO RUN FOR ELECTION TO BOSTON CITY COUNCIL
THANKS KEVIN MCCREA FOR TAKING THE COUNCIL TO COURT AND STOPPING THEIR SECRET, CLOSED DOOR SESSIONS
MC CREA ALSO INVOLVED IN OTHER COURT CASE THAT PUT HUNDREDS OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREET
BY ALTHEA GARRISON
FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Is government by the people and for the people? Or is it by the Boston City Council and only for the Boston City Council? Did you know that the Council worked in secrecy to change the amount of signatures that one needs to run for an At-Large or District seat?
Before they SECRETLY changed the law, a candidate for one of the four At-Large City Council seats needed only five hundred (500) signatures. Now, they need 1500 CERTIFIED signatures and all District candidates need two hundred (200).
No public hearings were held on this matter and thus the reason for my question: Is it government by the thirteen Boston City Councilors and for them only? CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
GARRISON BLAMES MURPHY
FOR CHANGING SIGNATURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNCIL
Two years ago, At-Large Councilor Stephen Murphy worked to change this election law. This year he worked SECRETLY to accomplish his mission. The public does not want more corrupt, unaccountable government. They want more open government - by and for the people.
This was a cowardly act and the councilors who participated in it must be defeated in the September Preliminary and November Final elections. I am strongly against Mr. Murphy’s cowardly act because changing the amount of signatures one needs to run for an At-Large Boston City Council Seat was one of the proudest pieces of legislation I supported when I was a State Representative and a member of the Commonwealth Election Law Committee. We reduced the original 1500 signature requirement to 500 signatures in order that more citizens could seek public office. It is no easy task for anyone to go out and ask enough voters to place their name in nomination and obtain 500 certifiable signatures to be on the ballot. Mr. Murphy just cut the legs out of the main objective which was to get more citizens to seek public office.
Who is the Boston City Council representing? Surely, not the hard working taxpayers who pay their salaries. We need real change on the Boston City Council and I hope that every Boston City Councilor facing a challenger this fall will be kicked out of office and out of their comfort zone. They are not accountable to the people and now is the time to make lasting changes on the Boston City Council, with new people.
All these councilors want to do is to hold on to power and not answer to the people paying the taxes. We need to clean out City Hall with new dedicated patriots who don’t mind answering to the public and being held accountable by the public for their actions. The current councilors aren’t being held accountable and they are non-responsive to the public.
I would like to thank Kevin McCrea for throwing his hat in the ring for Mayor and I wish him well. I thank him also for standing up to the Boston City Council on the Open Meeting Law and winning the court case.
McCrea was also involved in a prior law suit with other concerned citizens which was also won and resulted in the City of Boston hiring hundreds of new police officers to meet minimum staffing requirements as required by the City of Boston Charter.
Doorknocking!
I went door knocking for a few hours this afternoon. I met an attorney who moved to the city over 20 years ago, he works for non-profits, and has worked with the Mayor on a number of projects. He spoke for many of the people that I met when he agreed we need a change. He said the problem at City Hall is that the Mayor does not attract good people to work with him to solve the problems because the Mayor is so petty and hard to deal with, and vindictive. He wants all of the credit and doesn't want to share in the good will. What is the matter with giving John Connolly the credit for working on an environmental issue or a bike issue? How about sharing the credit for implementing an effective numerical analysis tool like Citistat as some councilors have called for, or a 311 information number that many cities have? As this attorney said, if this guy was running a major corporation he would have been fired long ago.
A big thinking person would just want to do what is best for his constituents, no matter who comes up with the idea.
A big thinking person would just want to do what is best for his constituents, no matter who comes up with the idea.
Boston Press Photographers have taken over our living room!!!
The Boston Press Photographers Association has taken over our living room to do their annual judging of the Best Photos in Boston. They did this a couple years ago, as it is much more comfortable than a conference room at a college or hotel. It is interesting to see the many great photos of the city, plus see the expert panel of judges pick things apart in their judging. Our co-hosts are Rick Friedman and his partner Marlene. They will have the awards banquet later on in April. Good luck to all participants!
Nice analysis in Jamaica Plain Gazette
Fair analysis in Jamaica Plain Gazette:
Interesting the last line of the column where Michael Flaherty says: "Flaherty declined to comment, noting that it could still be a part of the settlement talks, which he would not want to influence." There have been no settlement talks, in fact I and my co-plaintiffs have offered to sit down (either in public or private at the councils discretion) to try and discuss the case and work towards a way to create more transparent government. Councilor Flaherty and the Council have ignored all offers and are coming to court this month with documents filed with the court which say that everything is fine the way it is now. Too bad he wasted $300,000 of taxpayer money fighting transparency.
The article:
City Councilor Michael Flaherty and real estate developer Kevin McCrea have announced runs for the Mayor’s Office in a campaign whose main buzzword is government “transparency.”
Flaherty and McCrea agree on a couple of things. Both complain that longtime incumbent Mayor Thomas Menino—who is widely presumed to be running yet again—operates the city with private deals and lack of public input. And both cite a 2005 lawsuit about Boston City Council violations of the state Open Meeting Law as an inspira-tion for their open-government stances.
Then there’s the big difference: Flaherty was the lead defendant in that lawsuit. McCrea was one of the plaintiffs.
The case, like the race, is called McCrea v. Flaherty.
Flaherty told the Gazette he has learned his lesson from the case and become an open-government activist. McCrea’s co-plaintiff, Shirley Kressel, said Flaherty has continued complaining about the Open Meeting Law’s existence, while McCrea has been the open-government activist all along.
The lawsuit will be back in court on Feb. 24, where both sides are seeking to settle with a full admission of guilt by the city, Kressel said. Previous court decisions have already blasted the City Council’s actions.
“Looking back on it, it’s regrettable,” Flaherty said of the Open Meeting Law violations in a Gazette phone interview last week. “I’m young and I’m human. I’ve made mistakes as a member of Boston City Council, and I’ll make mistakes as mayor.” The important thing is learning from mistakes, he said.
“Flaherty has been there for nine years,” said Kressel. “He’s been part of the problem, and now he wants to be a bigger part. [McCrea is] our only hope for all the things that Flaherty is promising.”
The campaigns of McCrea and Menino did not respond to Gazette interview requests. City Councilor Sam Yoon is also considering a mayoral run, but has made no official announcements yet.
No one is officially a candidate yet because nomination papers are not available until April. The city pre-liminary election will be held Sept. 22, followed by the final election Nov. 3.
Flaherty
Flaherty, a South Boston attorney and former prosecutor, had some scathing words of his own for Menino. He blasted the current administration’s “culture of pay-to-play politics and petty payback politics.”
“All too often, you’re not embraced by the merit of your idea or the strength of your proposal or your pas-sion and commitment to the city,” Flaherty said. “All too often, it’s who you hire, who represents you, who brings you into the building.”
Asked for specific examples, Flaherty spoke largely off-the-record. But he did point to the city’s system of securing payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs, from major nonprofit institutions such as colleges that use city services.
Current PILOTs vary widely, and it remains unclear exactly how they were calculated, with no descriptions in the contracts on file at City Hall. After years of City Council efforts to reform the PILOT system, Menino this month announced a task force that will take a shot at devising a standard PILOT formula. However, it appears there will still be no information about how current PILOTs were calculated.
“It’s loose and it’s inconsistent,” Flaherty said of the PILOT system. “It lends itself to a pay-for-play culture…[It’s] more about who [the institutions] hire, who their consultants are,” he said.
He also faulted Menino for only now addressing PILOTs—whose cash amounts are widely considered shockingly low—in a time of fiscal crisis and political opportunity.
“That’s management by crisis,” Flaherty said.
“I would like to mandate a fair and balanced tax for those colleges and universities,” Flaherty said. “I want to make that formula open and transparent.”
Flaherty quietly began a mayoral campaign more than a year ago with kitchen-table meetings in the homes of regular residents in an attempt to get grassroots input into his campaign. He announced his run with a video on YouTube. Those grassroots connections and Internet accessibility will be hallmarks of his mayoral administra-tion, he said.
“The thing I’ll be a stickler for is transparency and accountability,” Flaherty said. “I want everything on-line. I want all of the contracts that the city issues online. I want City Hall to be an open book.”
This week, Flaherty proposed a system that would allow city employees to anonymously criticize and suggest improvements in city services.
Asked about neighborhood-specific issues, Flaherty said he will have a series of proposals to address local-ized concerns. “Obviously, Jamaica Plain is going to be a critical neighborhood” in winning the Mayor’s Office, he said.
When the Gazette mentioned the ongoing wave of youth violence in parts of JP, Flaherty said he will press for hiring more city Streetworkers—counselors who conduct youth outreach—and getting them inside Boston Public Schools.
He also called for more police officers, but also a more diverse police force with officers who “look like the face of the city.”
McCrea
“Transparent” and “accountable” are words that show up in McCrea’s campaign announcement, too. They are the same key terms McCrea, a South End resident and active Democrat, used when he ran unsuccessfully for a citywide Boston City Council seat in 2005.
“We need to end the cycle of career politicians,” McCrea said in a written statement. “I’m not locked into a political system that dictates I must ‘go along to get along.’”
He has called for cutting taxes, a focus on neighborhood schools and cutting administrative staff in the school system in favor of classroom resources.
McCrea also raised a number of questions he has posed to the Menino administration: “Why has Mayor Thomas Menino given away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of City-owned property to the BRA [Boston Redevelopment Authority, a quasi-government agency]? Why doesn’t Boston have transparent government? Why have the ranks of City Hall employees increased, while the population stays level and student enrollment falls?”
“I am going to end waste and abuse in Boston city government,” McCrea wrote. “I will ensure that all of our public officials, boards and agencies are held accountable for their decisions.”
Open Meeting lawsuit
McCrea, along with Kressel and co-plaintiff Kathleen Devine, certainly held the City Council accountable with the lawsuit, which revealed 11 private council meetings in 2003-05, when Flaherty was council president.
Courts have fined the city $11,000 and issued withering criticism of the meetings, known as “councilor’s-only meetings.” Ten of the meetings were with Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) officials to discuss renewing the agency’s wide-ranging urban renewal powers. The other meeting was about a disease outbreak at a lab at Boston University, which has controversial plans to open a biolab studying extremely dangerous diseases.
The Open Meeting Law requires all government bodies to hold advertised, public meetings with only a few ex-ceptions, such as discussion of personnel issues or real estate negotiations. The law’s purposes are to prevent secret decision-making and to ensure public, democratic input.
Courts have found that the City Council meetings deliberately violated the law in various ways, including by attempting to get around it by rotating councilors in and out of the meetings so there was technically never a quorum present. Four councilors refused to join the meetings, calling them improper.
The BU meeting was the target of a warning letter from Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley. But the BRA meetings remained unknown to the public until McCrea and the other plaintiffs learned of them while closely following BRA activity.
The city lost the lawsuit in 2006, but appealed. According to Kressel, city attorneys are now willing to set-tle the suit with a full admission of guilt, but also an attempt to prevent any court order that would punish the council more for future violations.
The council was already under a previous order for highly similar Open Meeting Law violations in 1987.
Flaherty is not directly involved in the current lawsuit, which is in the hands of city attorneys. He con-firmed to the Gazette that his personal inclination would have been not to appeal it.
“At the time, I felt I acted appropriately,” Flaherty said. “The courts suggested that another course of ac-tion was more prudent. I accept the court’s decision, and lesson learned.” That lesson, he added, is to operate on total transparency.
Asked if he was aware while council president of the 1987 Open Meeting Law court ruling, Flaherty said, “No. I was in high school at the time,” adding that he was likely focused on the prom and a summer job. “I can assure you I was not paying attention.”
His proclaimed conversion on the lessons of the lawsuit is certainly strong. When the lawsuit was first filed, Flaherty believed it to be “frivolous, politically motivated and just not based on fact,” his spokesper-son told the Gazette at the time. That spokesperson was Andrew Kenneally, who this year has a campaign of his own for a City Council seat.
Kressel said she doubts the sincerity of Flaherty’s conversion. She noted that the council last year agreed to pay an aide to former council president Councilor Maureen Feeney to produce an eccentric report calling for the City Council to be exempt from the Open Meeting Law. While it was full of legal opinion, the aide who wrote it had no legal background. The report originated in the council’s Committee on Rules and Administration, where Flaherty is a member.
“They’re still violating the law,” Kressel added, noting that councilors often hold “private meetings in pub-lic” by huddling together and discussing things quietly in the midst of council meetings.
Flaherty specifically has said that “we need our privacy to thrash out deals,” she said. “He actually used the term ‘sausage factory’” in positive terms to defend council secrecy, she said, without realizing the term is supposed to be a criticism. It comes from the joke that “laws and sausages” are two products whose creation is too disgusting to watch.
Local City Councilor John Tobin, who attended the BU meeting but avoided the BRA meetings, has made similar defenses of the council’s ability to hold private discussions. However, the Open Meeting Law does not ban pri-vate discussions, only private deliberation or decision-making.
“What do we have to expect in the future from these councilors…who see the law as an impediment?” Kressel said. “They have no respect for the law and no respect for the citizens.”
Kressel said she is not a personal friend of McCrea and will not work actively on his campaign, but is sup-porting his candidacy.
“Hey, I’m supporting a developer! He must be good!” Kressel said with a laugh.
McCrea has reported that one lawsuit settlement idea rejected by city attorneys was the creation of a “Sun-shine Task Force” similar to one in San Francisco. An official government panel, it advocates open-meeting meth-ods and reviews public complaints about secrecy. Asked whether he would support creating such a task force in Boston, Flaherty declined to comment, noting that it could still be a part of the settlement talks, which he would not want to influence.
Interesting the last line of the column where Michael Flaherty says: "Flaherty declined to comment, noting that it could still be a part of the settlement talks, which he would not want to influence." There have been no settlement talks, in fact I and my co-plaintiffs have offered to sit down (either in public or private at the councils discretion) to try and discuss the case and work towards a way to create more transparent government. Councilor Flaherty and the Council have ignored all offers and are coming to court this month with documents filed with the court which say that everything is fine the way it is now. Too bad he wasted $300,000 of taxpayer money fighting transparency.
The article:
City Councilor Michael Flaherty and real estate developer Kevin McCrea have announced runs for the Mayor’s Office in a campaign whose main buzzword is government “transparency.”
Flaherty and McCrea agree on a couple of things. Both complain that longtime incumbent Mayor Thomas Menino—who is widely presumed to be running yet again—operates the city with private deals and lack of public input. And both cite a 2005 lawsuit about Boston City Council violations of the state Open Meeting Law as an inspira-tion for their open-government stances.
Then there’s the big difference: Flaherty was the lead defendant in that lawsuit. McCrea was one of the plaintiffs.
The case, like the race, is called McCrea v. Flaherty.
Flaherty told the Gazette he has learned his lesson from the case and become an open-government activist. McCrea’s co-plaintiff, Shirley Kressel, said Flaherty has continued complaining about the Open Meeting Law’s existence, while McCrea has been the open-government activist all along.
The lawsuit will be back in court on Feb. 24, where both sides are seeking to settle with a full admission of guilt by the city, Kressel said. Previous court decisions have already blasted the City Council’s actions.
“Looking back on it, it’s regrettable,” Flaherty said of the Open Meeting Law violations in a Gazette phone interview last week. “I’m young and I’m human. I’ve made mistakes as a member of Boston City Council, and I’ll make mistakes as mayor.” The important thing is learning from mistakes, he said.
“Flaherty has been there for nine years,” said Kressel. “He’s been part of the problem, and now he wants to be a bigger part. [McCrea is] our only hope for all the things that Flaherty is promising.”
The campaigns of McCrea and Menino did not respond to Gazette interview requests. City Councilor Sam Yoon is also considering a mayoral run, but has made no official announcements yet.
No one is officially a candidate yet because nomination papers are not available until April. The city pre-liminary election will be held Sept. 22, followed by the final election Nov. 3.
Flaherty
Flaherty, a South Boston attorney and former prosecutor, had some scathing words of his own for Menino. He blasted the current administration’s “culture of pay-to-play politics and petty payback politics.”
“All too often, you’re not embraced by the merit of your idea or the strength of your proposal or your pas-sion and commitment to the city,” Flaherty said. “All too often, it’s who you hire, who represents you, who brings you into the building.”
Asked for specific examples, Flaherty spoke largely off-the-record. But he did point to the city’s system of securing payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs, from major nonprofit institutions such as colleges that use city services.
Current PILOTs vary widely, and it remains unclear exactly how they were calculated, with no descriptions in the contracts on file at City Hall. After years of City Council efforts to reform the PILOT system, Menino this month announced a task force that will take a shot at devising a standard PILOT formula. However, it appears there will still be no information about how current PILOTs were calculated.
“It’s loose and it’s inconsistent,” Flaherty said of the PILOT system. “It lends itself to a pay-for-play culture…[It’s] more about who [the institutions] hire, who their consultants are,” he said.
He also faulted Menino for only now addressing PILOTs—whose cash amounts are widely considered shockingly low—in a time of fiscal crisis and political opportunity.
“That’s management by crisis,” Flaherty said.
“I would like to mandate a fair and balanced tax for those colleges and universities,” Flaherty said. “I want to make that formula open and transparent.”
Flaherty quietly began a mayoral campaign more than a year ago with kitchen-table meetings in the homes of regular residents in an attempt to get grassroots input into his campaign. He announced his run with a video on YouTube. Those grassroots connections and Internet accessibility will be hallmarks of his mayoral administra-tion, he said.
“The thing I’ll be a stickler for is transparency and accountability,” Flaherty said. “I want everything on-line. I want all of the contracts that the city issues online. I want City Hall to be an open book.”
This week, Flaherty proposed a system that would allow city employees to anonymously criticize and suggest improvements in city services.
Asked about neighborhood-specific issues, Flaherty said he will have a series of proposals to address local-ized concerns. “Obviously, Jamaica Plain is going to be a critical neighborhood” in winning the Mayor’s Office, he said.
When the Gazette mentioned the ongoing wave of youth violence in parts of JP, Flaherty said he will press for hiring more city Streetworkers—counselors who conduct youth outreach—and getting them inside Boston Public Schools.
He also called for more police officers, but also a more diverse police force with officers who “look like the face of the city.”
McCrea
“Transparent” and “accountable” are words that show up in McCrea’s campaign announcement, too. They are the same key terms McCrea, a South End resident and active Democrat, used when he ran unsuccessfully for a citywide Boston City Council seat in 2005.
“We need to end the cycle of career politicians,” McCrea said in a written statement. “I’m not locked into a political system that dictates I must ‘go along to get along.’”
He has called for cutting taxes, a focus on neighborhood schools and cutting administrative staff in the school system in favor of classroom resources.
McCrea also raised a number of questions he has posed to the Menino administration: “Why has Mayor Thomas Menino given away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of City-owned property to the BRA [Boston Redevelopment Authority, a quasi-government agency]? Why doesn’t Boston have transparent government? Why have the ranks of City Hall employees increased, while the population stays level and student enrollment falls?”
“I am going to end waste and abuse in Boston city government,” McCrea wrote. “I will ensure that all of our public officials, boards and agencies are held accountable for their decisions.”
Open Meeting lawsuit
McCrea, along with Kressel and co-plaintiff Kathleen Devine, certainly held the City Council accountable with the lawsuit, which revealed 11 private council meetings in 2003-05, when Flaherty was council president.
Courts have fined the city $11,000 and issued withering criticism of the meetings, known as “councilor’s-only meetings.” Ten of the meetings were with Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) officials to discuss renewing the agency’s wide-ranging urban renewal powers. The other meeting was about a disease outbreak at a lab at Boston University, which has controversial plans to open a biolab studying extremely dangerous diseases.
The Open Meeting Law requires all government bodies to hold advertised, public meetings with only a few ex-ceptions, such as discussion of personnel issues or real estate negotiations. The law’s purposes are to prevent secret decision-making and to ensure public, democratic input.
Courts have found that the City Council meetings deliberately violated the law in various ways, including by attempting to get around it by rotating councilors in and out of the meetings so there was technically never a quorum present. Four councilors refused to join the meetings, calling them improper.
The BU meeting was the target of a warning letter from Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley. But the BRA meetings remained unknown to the public until McCrea and the other plaintiffs learned of them while closely following BRA activity.
The city lost the lawsuit in 2006, but appealed. According to Kressel, city attorneys are now willing to set-tle the suit with a full admission of guilt, but also an attempt to prevent any court order that would punish the council more for future violations.
The council was already under a previous order for highly similar Open Meeting Law violations in 1987.
Flaherty is not directly involved in the current lawsuit, which is in the hands of city attorneys. He con-firmed to the Gazette that his personal inclination would have been not to appeal it.
“At the time, I felt I acted appropriately,” Flaherty said. “The courts suggested that another course of ac-tion was more prudent. I accept the court’s decision, and lesson learned.” That lesson, he added, is to operate on total transparency.
Asked if he was aware while council president of the 1987 Open Meeting Law court ruling, Flaherty said, “No. I was in high school at the time,” adding that he was likely focused on the prom and a summer job. “I can assure you I was not paying attention.”
His proclaimed conversion on the lessons of the lawsuit is certainly strong. When the lawsuit was first filed, Flaherty believed it to be “frivolous, politically motivated and just not based on fact,” his spokesper-son told the Gazette at the time. That spokesperson was Andrew Kenneally, who this year has a campaign of his own for a City Council seat.
Kressel said she doubts the sincerity of Flaherty’s conversion. She noted that the council last year agreed to pay an aide to former council president Councilor Maureen Feeney to produce an eccentric report calling for the City Council to be exempt from the Open Meeting Law. While it was full of legal opinion, the aide who wrote it had no legal background. The report originated in the council’s Committee on Rules and Administration, where Flaherty is a member.
“They’re still violating the law,” Kressel added, noting that councilors often hold “private meetings in pub-lic” by huddling together and discussing things quietly in the midst of council meetings.
Flaherty specifically has said that “we need our privacy to thrash out deals,” she said. “He actually used the term ‘sausage factory’” in positive terms to defend council secrecy, she said, without realizing the term is supposed to be a criticism. It comes from the joke that “laws and sausages” are two products whose creation is too disgusting to watch.
Local City Councilor John Tobin, who attended the BU meeting but avoided the BRA meetings, has made similar defenses of the council’s ability to hold private discussions. However, the Open Meeting Law does not ban pri-vate discussions, only private deliberation or decision-making.
“What do we have to expect in the future from these councilors…who see the law as an impediment?” Kressel said. “They have no respect for the law and no respect for the citizens.”
Kressel said she is not a personal friend of McCrea and will not work actively on his campaign, but is sup-porting his candidacy.
“Hey, I’m supporting a developer! He must be good!” Kressel said with a laugh.
McCrea has reported that one lawsuit settlement idea rejected by city attorneys was the creation of a “Sun-shine Task Force” similar to one in San Francisco. An official government panel, it advocates open-meeting meth-ods and reviews public complaints about secrecy. Asked whether he would support creating such a task force in Boston, Flaherty declined to comment, noting that it could still be a part of the settlement talks, which he would not want to influence.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Results of the Mayor's transparency poll:
64% of the readers feel that Mayor Menino is the King of the backroom deals.
Michael Flaherty and I would agree with that.
Michael Flaherty and I would agree with that.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
City sitting on nearly 1 billion in cash, also has nearly 1 billion in net assets
If you look at the KPMG annual auditing report on page 19 you will see that we have nearly one billion dollars in cash on hand, about two billion in liabilities, and two billion in other assets. This leaves us about 1 billion in the black. No wonder the Mayor feels comfortable in giving away land for free. Not sure why he feels comfortable cutting the school budget.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Mayor Proposes slashing 2010 school spending 47 million less than this year!
In one of the most disingenuous and dishonest and non transparent moves I've ever seen in person the Mayor's spokesperson came to the school committee tonight and proposed a school budget of $786 million dollars for fiscal year 2010, which is 47 million dollars below what we are spending this year, even though the Mayor's own projected revenues are the same as this year!
In other words the Mayor is saying that he wants to cut teachers and school funding in order to increase spending on other areas of the budget!
It was a madhouse at Court Street tonight, with hundreds of teachers and parents and students there to protest the school cuts. I won't go into detail about how ridiculous the numbers are in the report, which I assume the City will put online(???) for all to see. It is pretty detailed, but the only number that is really important is the proposed budget of $786 million. Dr. Reilinger started to immediately see some of the inconsistency, as the report on one hand says that the city will eliminate 699 full time equivalent employees, but on the other hand has a higher number for health care costs for those (now nonexistent) employees.
The bottom line is that Mayor Menino is trying to drum up support for his meals tax by scaring the heck out of students and teachers and parents. Doing his best Bush/Cheney/Rove tactics to get more money to build his power base. What he is going to do is try and look like a hero, by coming in and 'responding' to the crisis by miraculously finding the money to restore to the budget. In another hint about where he is going, there is a new school transit map proposed. They are clearly going to try and cut down on busing costs, maybe even eliminate busing from one side of the city to another, and try and keep people in zones. I have proposed ending busing altogether (except for choice) which you can read about here Notice, I wrote this way before the Globe or Phoenix weighed in on the issue.
I can not believe that the Mayor would use these scare tactics on his own people. In a preview of what Sam Yoon will be running on, he testified that education is a high priority and that we need to look at the downtown towers for more revenue. That's funny, I was talking about that 4 years ago in the City Council race. Welcome aboard the bandwagon Sam. 121A tax breaks for "blighted" buildings like One Beacon Street cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars that could go into education. Councilor Flaherty showed up late and hadn't testified by the time I and most other people had left.
Principal Macafee of the Madison Park High School and other administrators offered to take a 3% pay cut to help keep programs and teachers, exclusive of administrators who are retiring soon. The City is also offering a carrot and stick to the teachers union, allowing teachers who retire to take a one time 8% payout (not added to their pension number) but ONLY if all the teachers agree to a one year pay freeze.
The truth is that there is money in this budget not to cut a single teachers job or school program. When I am elected Mayor, I will restore any cuts this current administration makes to those programs.
My comments to the committee were as follows:
"Thank you for the chance to comment. This budget presentation has been disingenuous. Last Monday Lisa Signori informed the City Council that FY 2010 revenues would be up by 11 million dollars, essentially flat. There is no reason to decrease the spending for FY 2010.
With flat revenues the Mayor proposes a 54 million dollar reduction in the schools? Why does he value teachers and students less than other departments? Education should be our number 1 priority.
In the last 5 years the city payroll has increased by 1200 workers. Only 200 are police and 75 teachers. We need to look at cutting the other 925 workers before 1 teacher is removed.
This budget deficit was first identified in June of 2008. The Mayor and City Council responded to this identified deficit by giving all council staff and department heads raises! Before 1 teacher is laid off those raises need to be rescinded.
We need to stop giving away our land and our money. If we sold Winthrop Square garage we could get 100 million dollars. Deficit over. The Mayor gave away Heyward Place for free-we were promised a school-we got nothing. We need to take that parcel back sell it and put that money into education.
Education is what made the 20th century the American century. Now is not the time to cut funding it is the time to invest in our students.
The school board and the parents must demand an honest transparent budget that values education, teachers and students at least as much as other departments."
In other words the Mayor is saying that he wants to cut teachers and school funding in order to increase spending on other areas of the budget!
It was a madhouse at Court Street tonight, with hundreds of teachers and parents and students there to protest the school cuts. I won't go into detail about how ridiculous the numbers are in the report, which I assume the City will put online(???) for all to see. It is pretty detailed, but the only number that is really important is the proposed budget of $786 million. Dr. Reilinger started to immediately see some of the inconsistency, as the report on one hand says that the city will eliminate 699 full time equivalent employees, but on the other hand has a higher number for health care costs for those (now nonexistent) employees.
The bottom line is that Mayor Menino is trying to drum up support for his meals tax by scaring the heck out of students and teachers and parents. Doing his best Bush/Cheney/Rove tactics to get more money to build his power base. What he is going to do is try and look like a hero, by coming in and 'responding' to the crisis by miraculously finding the money to restore to the budget. In another hint about where he is going, there is a new school transit map proposed. They are clearly going to try and cut down on busing costs, maybe even eliminate busing from one side of the city to another, and try and keep people in zones. I have proposed ending busing altogether (except for choice) which you can read about here Notice, I wrote this way before the Globe or Phoenix weighed in on the issue.
I can not believe that the Mayor would use these scare tactics on his own people. In a preview of what Sam Yoon will be running on, he testified that education is a high priority and that we need to look at the downtown towers for more revenue. That's funny, I was talking about that 4 years ago in the City Council race. Welcome aboard the bandwagon Sam. 121A tax breaks for "blighted" buildings like One Beacon Street cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars that could go into education. Councilor Flaherty showed up late and hadn't testified by the time I and most other people had left.
Principal Macafee of the Madison Park High School and other administrators offered to take a 3% pay cut to help keep programs and teachers, exclusive of administrators who are retiring soon. The City is also offering a carrot and stick to the teachers union, allowing teachers who retire to take a one time 8% payout (not added to their pension number) but ONLY if all the teachers agree to a one year pay freeze.
The truth is that there is money in this budget not to cut a single teachers job or school program. When I am elected Mayor, I will restore any cuts this current administration makes to those programs.
My comments to the committee were as follows:
"Thank you for the chance to comment. This budget presentation has been disingenuous. Last Monday Lisa Signori informed the City Council that FY 2010 revenues would be up by 11 million dollars, essentially flat. There is no reason to decrease the spending for FY 2010.
With flat revenues the Mayor proposes a 54 million dollar reduction in the schools? Why does he value teachers and students less than other departments? Education should be our number 1 priority.
In the last 5 years the city payroll has increased by 1200 workers. Only 200 are police and 75 teachers. We need to look at cutting the other 925 workers before 1 teacher is removed.
This budget deficit was first identified in June of 2008. The Mayor and City Council responded to this identified deficit by giving all council staff and department heads raises! Before 1 teacher is laid off those raises need to be rescinded.
We need to stop giving away our land and our money. If we sold Winthrop Square garage we could get 100 million dollars. Deficit over. The Mayor gave away Heyward Place for free-we were promised a school-we got nothing. We need to take that parcel back sell it and put that money into education.
Education is what made the 20th century the American century. Now is not the time to cut funding it is the time to invest in our students.
The school board and the parents must demand an honest transparent budget that values education, teachers and students at least as much as other departments."
How to solve this year's budget deficit
How to balance the FY ’10 budget 101:
1) For the past 7 years the city perennially collects $40-80 million more than the budget projects. Come clean on the “real” revenue numbers – state aid is known, taxes are predictable to within 1% and while local revenues are slightly less predictable, they represent only 20% of the whole budget and are still fairly consistent from year to year. Based on historic numbers, the city should still collect at least $30 million more than they are currently projecting in the pro forma budget.
2) Amazingly, for the past 8 years the city has collected significantly more than projected, but then manages to generate a surplus of only a few million dollars. The only way to manage a $2 billion plus budget to a net “profit” of less than 1% every single year is to fudge the numbers with a significant amount of discretionary spending (unless you are Bernie Madoff and the numbers are not real to begin with). Hold the line on this discretionary spending and we save $25 million or curiously almost exactly the increase the city is forecasting on “Other Department Expenses”.
3) The city put $10 million in the budget last year as fuel costs surged. Oil prices are now at their lowest level in years. Not only should we save the $10 million, but lower prices should add another several million in savings to the budget.
4) The city reported that the hiring freeze has saved the city about $10 million.
That’s exactly half the $150 million shortfall right there-at least.
5) The city spends about $65 million on busing but it is apparent from recent articles in the local papers that significant opportunities exist to make busing more efficient. Assuming just a 15% savings cuts $10 million from the budget.
6) The city has projected a 12% increase in the cost of healthcare for next year. Ignoring the possibility that this number could be “slightly” exaggerated in the first place in order to extract concessions on meals taxes from the legislature, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau puts potential annual savings of switching to the state run Group Insurance Commission conservatively at roughly $25 million.
This additional savings of $35 million cuts the projected deficit to $40 million or almost exactly the deficit already projected last Spring when the city enacted the FY ’09 budget.
7) While a wage freeze would probably be a fair concession from the unions given global economic conditions, these are subject to legally binding contracts and should only be considered after retroactively cutting all the raises given to city elected officials and other non-union personnel within the past 2 fiscal years. Only then should the city look to cut collective bargaining agreements. However, rather than simply slashing equally across all the wage scales, cuts should be less severe at the low end (for example, those making under $50,000) and fully implemented at the upper end (those making more than $100,000). For example, no cuts for employees making under $50,000 and a 2% reduction of raises for every $1000 thereafter until raises are eliminated completely for those making more than $100,000. If the 80/20 rule holds here like it does in most other areas of economics, we are looking at a balanced budget by thus cutting another $40 million from the budget and the budget is balanced without a single layoff. The wage scale should be adjusted of course to generate this $40 million in savings.
BUDGET HISTORY – BUDGETS V. ACTUAL RESULTS
Dollar figures in millions of dollars
REVENUES EXPENSES
YEAR BUDGET ACTUAL DIFF BUDGET ACTUAL DIFF SURPLUS
2008 2,309 2,343 34 2,309 2,327 18 16
2007 2,142 2,202 60 2,142 2,187 45 15
2006 2,062 2,104 42 2,062 2,090 28 14
2005 1,924 1,980 56 1,924 1,972 48 8
2004 1,852 1,893 41 1,852 1,888 36 5
2003 1,784 1,863 79 1,784 1,861 76 3
2002 1,772 1,815 43 1,772 1,810 38 5
2001 1,691 1,730 39 1,691 1,721 30 9
2000 1,612 1,624 12 1,612 1,616 4 8
1) For the past 7 years the city perennially collects $40-80 million more than the budget projects. Come clean on the “real” revenue numbers – state aid is known, taxes are predictable to within 1% and while local revenues are slightly less predictable, they represent only 20% of the whole budget and are still fairly consistent from year to year. Based on historic numbers, the city should still collect at least $30 million more than they are currently projecting in the pro forma budget.
2) Amazingly, for the past 8 years the city has collected significantly more than projected, but then manages to generate a surplus of only a few million dollars. The only way to manage a $2 billion plus budget to a net “profit” of less than 1% every single year is to fudge the numbers with a significant amount of discretionary spending (unless you are Bernie Madoff and the numbers are not real to begin with). Hold the line on this discretionary spending and we save $25 million or curiously almost exactly the increase the city is forecasting on “Other Department Expenses”.
3) The city put $10 million in the budget last year as fuel costs surged. Oil prices are now at their lowest level in years. Not only should we save the $10 million, but lower prices should add another several million in savings to the budget.
4) The city reported that the hiring freeze has saved the city about $10 million.
That’s exactly half the $150 million shortfall right there-at least.
5) The city spends about $65 million on busing but it is apparent from recent articles in the local papers that significant opportunities exist to make busing more efficient. Assuming just a 15% savings cuts $10 million from the budget.
6) The city has projected a 12% increase in the cost of healthcare for next year. Ignoring the possibility that this number could be “slightly” exaggerated in the first place in order to extract concessions on meals taxes from the legislature, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau puts potential annual savings of switching to the state run Group Insurance Commission conservatively at roughly $25 million.
This additional savings of $35 million cuts the projected deficit to $40 million or almost exactly the deficit already projected last Spring when the city enacted the FY ’09 budget.
7) While a wage freeze would probably be a fair concession from the unions given global economic conditions, these are subject to legally binding contracts and should only be considered after retroactively cutting all the raises given to city elected officials and other non-union personnel within the past 2 fiscal years. Only then should the city look to cut collective bargaining agreements. However, rather than simply slashing equally across all the wage scales, cuts should be less severe at the low end (for example, those making under $50,000) and fully implemented at the upper end (those making more than $100,000). For example, no cuts for employees making under $50,000 and a 2% reduction of raises for every $1000 thereafter until raises are eliminated completely for those making more than $100,000. If the 80/20 rule holds here like it does in most other areas of economics, we are looking at a balanced budget by thus cutting another $40 million from the budget and the budget is balanced without a single layoff. The wage scale should be adjusted of course to generate this $40 million in savings.
BUDGET HISTORY – BUDGETS V. ACTUAL RESULTS
Dollar figures in millions of dollars
REVENUES EXPENSES
YEAR BUDGET ACTUAL DIFF BUDGET ACTUAL DIFF SURPLUS
2008 2,309 2,343 34 2,309 2,327 18 16
2007 2,142 2,202 60 2,142 2,187 45 15
2006 2,062 2,104 42 2,062 2,090 28 14
2005 1,924 1,980 56 1,924 1,972 48 8
2004 1,852 1,893 41 1,852 1,888 36 5
2003 1,784 1,863 79 1,784 1,861 76 3
2002 1,772 1,815 43 1,772 1,810 38 5
2001 1,691 1,730 39 1,691 1,721 30 9
2000 1,612 1,624 12 1,612 1,616 4 8
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Missing child in Grove Hall-please help
Hello Everyone,
My daughter, Tyree went missing on Saturday, January 31, 2009. She was last seen at the Stop & Shop in Grove Hall (which is around where we live). She met me in the store and explained that she was going to a friend's house to do her friend's hair.
She was last seen wearing a blue winter coat w/ fur around the hood, light blue jeans and all black Nike Air Forces. She's 5' 3" and weighs about 130 pounds.
I've attached a picture of her in hopes that someone will recognize her.
Tyree is to the right of the Mayor in the very blue coat w/ fur around the hood that she was wearing when last seen.
If you do see Tyree, please call me @ work: 617-825-4200 x225 or call 911
Thanks,
Cookie
Techno-Bay
Technology @ Dorchester Bay
Learning technology today starts at DorBay!
Cookie Sheers
Techno-Bay "Family" Instructor
617-825-4200 x225
617-825-3522 (fax)
Tyree's_pic.jpg
872K View
My daughter, Tyree went missing on Saturday, January 31, 2009. She was last seen at the Stop & Shop in Grove Hall (which is around where we live). She met me in the store and explained that she was going to a friend's house to do her friend's hair.
She was last seen wearing a blue winter coat w/ fur around the hood, light blue jeans and all black Nike Air Forces. She's 5' 3" and weighs about 130 pounds.
I've attached a picture of her in hopes that someone will recognize her.
Tyree is to the right of the Mayor in the very blue coat w/ fur around the hood that she was wearing when last seen.
If you do see Tyree, please call me @ work: 617-825-4200 x225 or call 911
Thanks,
Cookie
Techno-Bay
Technology @ Dorchester Bay
Learning technology today starts at DorBay!
Cookie Sheers
Techno-Bay "Family" Instructor
617-825-4200 x225
617-825-3522 (fax)
Tyree's_pic.jpg
872K View
Monday, February 02, 2009
Flaherty poll results:
24 votes say Michael does care about transparency and he should testify about it.
55 votes say Michael is jumping on my bandwagon!
Welcome aboard Michael, and I can't wait for you to post the Walkowski report you voted for to be posted on your website. Let the voters know how you think the City Council should be exempt from the Open Meeting Law.
55 votes say Michael is jumping on my bandwagon!
Welcome aboard Michael, and I can't wait for you to post the Walkowski report you voted for to be posted on your website. Let the voters know how you think the City Council should be exempt from the Open Meeting Law.
Another Scam!
Fox News has reported another scam. The one thing wrong with the story is that the BRA says it does not cost taxpayers anything. That is not true. If something is being undervalued it costs us taxpayer dollars. For example, the BRA makes 121A tax breaks available to rich property owners like the One Beacon building. These tax breaks are supposedly to be used for affordable housing, but the BRA acts like a loan shark, extorting money from rich commercial owners, in order to allow them to not pay their fair share of real estate taxes to the City of Boston. This has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in the last few years. This will be its own scam of the week later in more detail.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
City Hall Scam of the Week!
During the campaign as I have time, I will write about and expose different City Hall scams, giveaways, and other behavior that doesn't serve the citizen's of Boston best interests. I doubt you will have the same input from my opponents, because as President Obama would say: Change doesn't come from City Hall, Change will come to City Hall!
Scam of the Week: Paul Walkowski
This is an excellent example of the waste, fraud and abuse at Boston City Hall because every elected official in the building was in on it, every city councilor and the Mayor and not one of them stood up to save the taxpayer money.
Paul Walkowski served for well more than a decade as an aid to City Councilor Jimmy Kelly. When Councilor Kelly died, Mr. Walkowski no longer had his $50,000 or so job with the City. (Salary according to City Clerk's office) So, what did the elected members of the City Council and the Mayor do? They cooked up a back room deal to boost his salary, and hence his pension, by 50% for 3 years so that Mr. Walkowski could retire at a much higher rate!
In 2007 the City Council was ethically reeling from losing the McCrea v. Flaherty and the Boston City Council lawsuit proving they had been engaging in back room deals. So, how did they respond? They held a Rules Committee meeting where the minutes indicated that they already had too many staff and not enough work to do. So, of course, they decided to change the City Laws to increase City Council central staff 8.5% and create a position for Mr. Walkowski to write a report on how the City Council could get around or exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Walkowski is not a lawyer, why would the city council hire a lawyer to give them a legal opinion? They also decided that because Mr. Walkowski had worked for close to 20 years at City Hall getting his salary up to around $50,000 that they would need to immediately increase his salary into the $70,000 plus range to retain him.
On June 20, 2007 at the City Council regular Wednesday meeting Council President Feeney felt it so urgent to get this done that she did a "late file". Normally when you are changing the laws of the City you submit a bill that gets assigned to a committee, there is a meeting and it then goes back to the full council for a vote. But, in emergency matters, if EVERY councilor agrees to suspend the rules then a motion can be heard the day it was introduced. Because it was a late file, filed 24 hours before the meeting no public citizen gets to see it, it is not posted on the web, or the city bulletin board or anywhere. No citizen could possibly know that they are expanding the City Council staff by 8.5%, increasing someone's salary by 50%, and hiring them to write a report on how the City Council could exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law.
It get's even better. If you watch the video and you fast forward to 1:03:45 you can see Council President Feeney calls a recess in the middle of the meeting and asks all the councilors to come up to her dais to discuss a "matter." Watch the body language as all the councilors come up to discuss, on camera, but in secret and with the microphones off, whatever personnel matter they need to do! This, in my opinion is yet another violation of the Open Meeting Law, and it certainly excludes the public from the deliberations that are going on. This is common practice with the City Council. Why can't they just discuss whatever they have to discuss in the open? Isn't that what transparency is all about? There they all are discussing the people's business in private, right on camera: Yoon, Flaherty, Murphy, Ross, Feeney, Tobin, Linehan, etc.
But wait, there's more! They still have to pass this bill. At the end of regular business, they address the late files. Scroll forward on the video to 1:21:50. Councilor Feeney asks the council to suspend the rules, which requires an unanimous vote which she gets. City Clerk Salerno starts to read the motion "ordered by President Feeney, an order amending...." as her voice trails off and she literally gives the nod to Councilor Feeney. Feeney says "a matter of personnel in nature." She asks that the rules be suspended by the body and that the rules be suspended and the motion passed. She gets a weak voice vote, and the deed is nearly done. Not a single councilor asked a single question or raised an objection to giving someone a $20,000 raise and hiring them to write a report on how to exclude the City Council from the Open Meeting Law. No debate, no discussion, they were all in favor of hiring someone with taxpayer money to figure out a way to let the council exclude the taxpayers from the decision making process. Thank you councilors Yoon, Flaherty, Ross, Feeney, etc.
But, the citizens still had hope. The executive branch, the Mayor, needed to sign off on amending City Laws to increase City Council central staff. Alas, it was not to be and the Mayor also agreed that staff levels should be increased 8.5% and the City should spend valuable resources figuring out ways to exclude the public from the decision making process. He signed the bill, and Paul Walkowski was hired.
Did they send out a press release? No. In fact, they didn't even tell their own lawyers fighting on their behalf in the Open Meeting Suit that they had done this. When the Walkowski report came out in public (which they refused to post online or release in electronic form!!!) the lawyers working for the council were as surprised as we were. By all accounts, the report was garbage. But what did the councilors do in the face of public pressure and editorials to put the report in the circular file? They sent it off to the MMA, the DA and AG for comment. I asked Councilor Feeney last week if they had heard back and she said they hadn't. I have already asked for copies of all written response to this waste of the taxpayers time and money.
I went to last Monday's presentation of the budget from the Mayor's office to the Councilors where I was going to suggest that if they wanted to start trimming the budget, before they talk about teachers and police officers that they needed to start with Paul Walkowski who costs the City about $100,000 a year with benefits. Amazingly enough, as I was entering the City Council offices who was standing there but Paul Walkowski. We started up a chat about the Open Meeting Law, and his and the councils position that the First Amendment gives them freedom to discuss everything they want behind closed doors and just vote on it in public. I disagreed with him and them and told him that I was going to call for his job and position to be eliminated. He smiled and said "it doesn't matter to me, I'm retiring Friday!"
It was a moment of clarity for me! I realized this whole thing was a 'golden parachute' given to a long time city hall insider, by all the councilors and the Mayor. Since he was hired in 2007, he got 2007, 2008, and since he worked in January of 2009 he will have three years in at his higher pay grade and hence will receive a larger pension! The same reason Senator Wilkerson and Senator Marzilli were hoping to wait until January to resign, one more year of pension!
This is the waste, fraud and abuse at City Hall and they are all in on it. Menino, Yoon, Flaherty, Feeney, Ross, etc. There is no transparency, there is only 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' Any one of the councilors or the Mayor could have stood up and said this was wrong, or at the very least 'why are we paying a guy $75,000 a year who would work at $50,000 a year?" We the citizens are going to be paying for this mistake as long as Paul Walkowski lives.
On January 15, 2009 after President Ross announced a new era of transparency, I sent a public records request to him for a copy of everyone of Walkowski's paychecks since he was hired by the council. A response is required within 10 days, I received none. I asked Councilor Ross personally when I saw him last week and he now has the clerks office working on it, because I suspect there was even more funny business going on with his pay.
After Mr. Walkowski informed me he was retiring, I sent an email to Councilor Flaherty and Councilor Yoon asking the following:
Dear Councilor,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
These are the tough questions that I will be asking as Mayor. Our current Mayor is proposing a 6.25% increase in the City Budget this year. He has negotiated contracts that call for 5% pay increase across the board for all City employees. He gave bonuses to all his department heads after this years deficit was predicted, the councilors gave bonuses to their staff as well.
When the rest of the citizens are happy to have a job, and are looking for ways to live within their means, these guys are trying to squeeze more money out of us to give away larger pensions to people like Paul Walkowski. This has to stop, the citizens of Boston can not afford it. We need an outsider, like me, with business experience, who knows how to balance a budget to get a grip on our expenses.
Right now, I am calling for the Mayor and the City Councilors to move with the same speed with which they hired Paul Walkowski to eliminate the position and change the City Laws back to the staffing level they had before he was hired. If they don't do that, you know they aren't remotely interested in actually trimming the fat and the pork from the City budget.
Thank you for your support, please volunteer or contribute at www.kevinmccrea.com
Scam of the Week: Paul Walkowski
This is an excellent example of the waste, fraud and abuse at Boston City Hall because every elected official in the building was in on it, every city councilor and the Mayor and not one of them stood up to save the taxpayer money.
Paul Walkowski served for well more than a decade as an aid to City Councilor Jimmy Kelly. When Councilor Kelly died, Mr. Walkowski no longer had his $50,000 or so job with the City. (Salary according to City Clerk's office) So, what did the elected members of the City Council and the Mayor do? They cooked up a back room deal to boost his salary, and hence his pension, by 50% for 3 years so that Mr. Walkowski could retire at a much higher rate!
In 2007 the City Council was ethically reeling from losing the McCrea v. Flaherty and the Boston City Council lawsuit proving they had been engaging in back room deals. So, how did they respond? They held a Rules Committee meeting where the minutes indicated that they already had too many staff and not enough work to do. So, of course, they decided to change the City Laws to increase City Council central staff 8.5% and create a position for Mr. Walkowski to write a report on how the City Council could get around or exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Walkowski is not a lawyer, why would the city council hire a lawyer to give them a legal opinion? They also decided that because Mr. Walkowski had worked for close to 20 years at City Hall getting his salary up to around $50,000 that they would need to immediately increase his salary into the $70,000 plus range to retain him.
On June 20, 2007 at the City Council regular Wednesday meeting Council President Feeney felt it so urgent to get this done that she did a "late file". Normally when you are changing the laws of the City you submit a bill that gets assigned to a committee, there is a meeting and it then goes back to the full council for a vote. But, in emergency matters, if EVERY councilor agrees to suspend the rules then a motion can be heard the day it was introduced. Because it was a late file, filed 24 hours before the meeting no public citizen gets to see it, it is not posted on the web, or the city bulletin board or anywhere. No citizen could possibly know that they are expanding the City Council staff by 8.5%, increasing someone's salary by 50%, and hiring them to write a report on how the City Council could exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law.
It get's even better. If you watch the video and you fast forward to 1:03:45 you can see Council President Feeney calls a recess in the middle of the meeting and asks all the councilors to come up to her dais to discuss a "matter." Watch the body language as all the councilors come up to discuss, on camera, but in secret and with the microphones off, whatever personnel matter they need to do! This, in my opinion is yet another violation of the Open Meeting Law, and it certainly excludes the public from the deliberations that are going on. This is common practice with the City Council. Why can't they just discuss whatever they have to discuss in the open? Isn't that what transparency is all about? There they all are discussing the people's business in private, right on camera: Yoon, Flaherty, Murphy, Ross, Feeney, Tobin, Linehan, etc.
But wait, there's more! They still have to pass this bill. At the end of regular business, they address the late files. Scroll forward on the video to 1:21:50. Councilor Feeney asks the council to suspend the rules, which requires an unanimous vote which she gets. City Clerk Salerno starts to read the motion "ordered by President Feeney, an order amending...." as her voice trails off and she literally gives the nod to Councilor Feeney. Feeney says "a matter of personnel in nature." She asks that the rules be suspended by the body and that the rules be suspended and the motion passed. She gets a weak voice vote, and the deed is nearly done. Not a single councilor asked a single question or raised an objection to giving someone a $20,000 raise and hiring them to write a report on how to exclude the City Council from the Open Meeting Law. No debate, no discussion, they were all in favor of hiring someone with taxpayer money to figure out a way to let the council exclude the taxpayers from the decision making process. Thank you councilors Yoon, Flaherty, Ross, Feeney, etc.
But, the citizens still had hope. The executive branch, the Mayor, needed to sign off on amending City Laws to increase City Council central staff. Alas, it was not to be and the Mayor also agreed that staff levels should be increased 8.5% and the City should spend valuable resources figuring out ways to exclude the public from the decision making process. He signed the bill, and Paul Walkowski was hired.
Did they send out a press release? No. In fact, they didn't even tell their own lawyers fighting on their behalf in the Open Meeting Suit that they had done this. When the Walkowski report came out in public (which they refused to post online or release in electronic form!!!) the lawyers working for the council were as surprised as we were. By all accounts, the report was garbage. But what did the councilors do in the face of public pressure and editorials to put the report in the circular file? They sent it off to the MMA, the DA and AG for comment. I asked Councilor Feeney last week if they had heard back and she said they hadn't. I have already asked for copies of all written response to this waste of the taxpayers time and money.
I went to last Monday's presentation of the budget from the Mayor's office to the Councilors where I was going to suggest that if they wanted to start trimming the budget, before they talk about teachers and police officers that they needed to start with Paul Walkowski who costs the City about $100,000 a year with benefits. Amazingly enough, as I was entering the City Council offices who was standing there but Paul Walkowski. We started up a chat about the Open Meeting Law, and his and the councils position that the First Amendment gives them freedom to discuss everything they want behind closed doors and just vote on it in public. I disagreed with him and them and told him that I was going to call for his job and position to be eliminated. He smiled and said "it doesn't matter to me, I'm retiring Friday!"
It was a moment of clarity for me! I realized this whole thing was a 'golden parachute' given to a long time city hall insider, by all the councilors and the Mayor. Since he was hired in 2007, he got 2007, 2008, and since he worked in January of 2009 he will have three years in at his higher pay grade and hence will receive a larger pension! The same reason Senator Wilkerson and Senator Marzilli were hoping to wait until January to resign, one more year of pension!
This is the waste, fraud and abuse at City Hall and they are all in on it. Menino, Yoon, Flaherty, Feeney, Ross, etc. There is no transparency, there is only 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' Any one of the councilors or the Mayor could have stood up and said this was wrong, or at the very least 'why are we paying a guy $75,000 a year who would work at $50,000 a year?" We the citizens are going to be paying for this mistake as long as Paul Walkowski lives.
On January 15, 2009 after President Ross announced a new era of transparency, I sent a public records request to him for a copy of everyone of Walkowski's paychecks since he was hired by the council. A response is required within 10 days, I received none. I asked Councilor Ross personally when I saw him last week and he now has the clerks office working on it, because I suspect there was even more funny business going on with his pay.
After Mr. Walkowski informed me he was retiring, I sent an email to Councilor Flaherty and Councilor Yoon asking the following:
Dear Councilor,
Thank you for your recent calls for more transparency.
1) I would like to know why you voted to change the City of Boston laws to increase the city council staff to add a position for Paul Walkowski, and increase his pay by around $20,000 above what the city had been paying him as a staff member for councilor Kelly. Can you please tell me what work he did for the city and how the city benefited by you voting to suspend the rules, and change the city laws to hire him. Why did we need to pay him 40 percent more than he had been making? What are the pension ramifications of this, as he told me this week he is retiring friday.
These are the tough questions that I will be asking as Mayor. Our current Mayor is proposing a 6.25% increase in the City Budget this year. He has negotiated contracts that call for 5% pay increase across the board for all City employees. He gave bonuses to all his department heads after this years deficit was predicted, the councilors gave bonuses to their staff as well.
When the rest of the citizens are happy to have a job, and are looking for ways to live within their means, these guys are trying to squeeze more money out of us to give away larger pensions to people like Paul Walkowski. This has to stop, the citizens of Boston can not afford it. We need an outsider, like me, with business experience, who knows how to balance a budget to get a grip on our expenses.
Right now, I am calling for the Mayor and the City Councilors to move with the same speed with which they hired Paul Walkowski to eliminate the position and change the City Laws back to the staffing level they had before he was hired. If they don't do that, you know they aren't remotely interested in actually trimming the fat and the pork from the City budget.
Thank you for your support, please volunteer or contribute at www.kevinmccrea.com
Friday, January 30, 2009
My first sign has been torn down!
In the first sign that the thuggery of old school Boston Politics is alive and well, one of my supporters reports that our campaign sign was ripped off of a building in Roxbury.
This is exactly the type of undemocratic bullying that I have come to expect from Boston politicians. Freedom of speech to them means that they are free to speak behind closed doors to work out their back room deals.
I'm hoping that we use some 20th and 21st century technology to off set their 19th century mentality. If you see someone tearing down our signs, or defacing property, try and catch it with your cell phone camera. We will post it online and expose the scofflaws!
One of my friends who is a "City Hall Insider" warned me about this type of stuff before the campaign started, he warned me that they will go through my trash and stop at nothing to make things difficult.
As usual, I'm not intimidated or impressed by their actions and I call on the Mayor and Michael Flaherty to publicly come out and speak out about against this sort of behavior.
I went to the State House forum on openness and transparency put on by Mass Inc. today. It didn't shock me that no one from City Hall was there to discuss openness, transparency or accountability!
This is exactly the type of undemocratic bullying that I have come to expect from Boston politicians. Freedom of speech to them means that they are free to speak behind closed doors to work out their back room deals.
I'm hoping that we use some 20th and 21st century technology to off set their 19th century mentality. If you see someone tearing down our signs, or defacing property, try and catch it with your cell phone camera. We will post it online and expose the scofflaws!
One of my friends who is a "City Hall Insider" warned me about this type of stuff before the campaign started, he warned me that they will go through my trash and stop at nothing to make things difficult.
As usual, I'm not intimidated or impressed by their actions and I call on the Mayor and Michael Flaherty to publicly come out and speak out about against this sort of behavior.
I went to the State House forum on openness and transparency put on by Mass Inc. today. It didn't shock me that no one from City Hall was there to discuss openness, transparency or accountability!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Electronic interaction with the public
We are in the process of setting up a scheduled time to blog online, and let citizens from around the city send in their comments for us to answer in real time. In the meantime, feel free to email questions to electkevin@gmail.com and we will get an answer to you.
Super busy!
I was on Neighborhood Network News with Chris Lovett this afternoon speaking about the budget and other matters. Sit down interview with one of the weekly papers tomorrow, and radio interview after that.
I will write my more complete thoughts on the budget later, but we need to finally make the non-profit institutions start paying their fair share. It is conservatively estimated that if the colleges and hospitals and other non-profits paid the "suggested" PILOT payment of 1/4 of what their regular tax would be the the city would have an additional 80 million dollars every year. Councilor Murphy has brought up this issue many times, we need leadership on this issue. If I was Mayor I would not allow any further institutional expansion until agreements were made assuring the city of reasonable pay for the city services of fire, police, etc. that those institutions use.
The next great sapping of our rightful money comes from the BRA. They should have to pay tax on their revenue generating property. Most importantly the Mayor needs to stop giving away our property for free. Heyward Place and Winthrop Square garage on their own would generate enough revenue to end the budget crisis for this year. Why did the Mayor give that property away for free? Who gives property away for free? Maybe someone who is getting a lot of campaign contributions from developers and the lawyers they use?
I agree with Councilor Flaherty who has jumped on my transparency bandwagon: It is time to end the back room deals at City Hall. My administration will do that.
-Eliminate No bid contracts
-All BRA and City of Boston transactions available online
I will write my more complete thoughts on the budget later, but we need to finally make the non-profit institutions start paying their fair share. It is conservatively estimated that if the colleges and hospitals and other non-profits paid the "suggested" PILOT payment of 1/4 of what their regular tax would be the the city would have an additional 80 million dollars every year. Councilor Murphy has brought up this issue many times, we need leadership on this issue. If I was Mayor I would not allow any further institutional expansion until agreements were made assuring the city of reasonable pay for the city services of fire, police, etc. that those institutions use.
The next great sapping of our rightful money comes from the BRA. They should have to pay tax on their revenue generating property. Most importantly the Mayor needs to stop giving away our property for free. Heyward Place and Winthrop Square garage on their own would generate enough revenue to end the budget crisis for this year. Why did the Mayor give that property away for free? Who gives property away for free? Maybe someone who is getting a lot of campaign contributions from developers and the lawyers they use?
I agree with Councilor Flaherty who has jumped on my transparency bandwagon: It is time to end the back room deals at City Hall. My administration will do that.
-Eliminate No bid contracts
-All BRA and City of Boston transactions available online
Michael Flaherty admits guilt, wasting the taxpayer money, and jumps on my bandwagon!!
According to today's Boston Globe Michael Flaherty is going to give a speech tonight where he admits that he has been wrong all along about the Open Meeting Law, that I was right, and that he wasted all that taxpayer money and City resources fighting the lawsuit.
I wonder just how much input Michael Flaherty needs to make a good decision? Michael Flaherty was warned and told numerous times that his actions were illegal, but yet it never sunk in until he decided he wanted to be Mayor (where he is not subject to the Open Meeting Law!) Remember, he is an attorney who used to work in the DA's office and his father is a judge, plus they hired $600 an hour lawyers at our expense, and he still didn't understand this was legally wrong?
Did he realize he was wrong when:
-Felix Arroyo wrote him a series of letters telling him that his actions of having 6 councilors in a room discuss the public business, then rotating people in and out of the room so other councilors could join in the discussion but they could exclude the press and the public from the goings on of government? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when the District Attorney wrote him a letter telling him that his actions were illegal? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when I, along with Shirley Kressel and Kathleen Devine filed a lawsuit outlining all of the abuses we had been able to find about? NO
-Did he talk with us or meet with us when we offered him the olive branch to settle the suit and craft better Open Meeting Laws? NO
-Did he take the opportunity to revisit the worst decision he made as a councilor (by his own words) and take back some control and accountability over the BRA? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when Superior Court Judge Holtz wrote a scathing decision telling him he was wrong on all counts? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong after hiring a $600 an hour lawyer at taxpayer expense to fight the decision in the appeals court and losing there as well? NO
-Did he admit he was wrong after the City Council admitted guilt on all violations this past November? NO
After nearly 4 years of wasting taxpayer time and money which could have gone to the schools or keeping the streets safe, Michael Flaherty admits guilt. Well, I don't buy it. As Mayor he would not be subject to the Open Meeting Law, and he could meet in the Mayor's office at City Hall behind closed doors with anyone he pleases. With a track record like his, who trusts him?
Notice that he has not proposed, as I have, ways to make the City more transparent:
1) Post all expenses of the City of Boston and the BRA online
2) Craft the toughest Open Meeting Laws in the country.
3) Eliminate the BRA and create a city planning agency so that we have accountability, not a "pay to play" situation for developers.
4) Eliminate No Bid Contracts
If he really cares about transparency I call on him to do the following:
1) In his YOUTUBE video, Michael says we have to eliminate back room deals at City Hall. Since he is now paying big bucks for internet consultants, I call on him to post a list of all the back room deals he is aware of on his website. Let the citizens know how bad the situation is at City Hall.
2) Post a list of all the Boston clients of his law firm Adler, Pollock, and Sheehan. Let the citizens know if he will still be working as an attorney if he is elected Mayor, available to be hired to consult on real estate and business matters in Boston as he is now.
3) Hold a public hearing of all the city councilors where citizens are allowed to ask questions about all the back room deals that have gone on under his watch.
4) Take some of his campaign funds and pay back the citizens of Boston for all the money he took from us while he was fighting against transparency at City Hall.
This is not leadership. This is jumping on my bandwagon of bringing Open, Honest, Professional, Transparent government to the citizens of Boston. Please visit my website for an outline of a true progressive government for the citizens. I ask for your vote and your support.
Thank You,
Kevin McCrea
I wonder just how much input Michael Flaherty needs to make a good decision? Michael Flaherty was warned and told numerous times that his actions were illegal, but yet it never sunk in until he decided he wanted to be Mayor (where he is not subject to the Open Meeting Law!) Remember, he is an attorney who used to work in the DA's office and his father is a judge, plus they hired $600 an hour lawyers at our expense, and he still didn't understand this was legally wrong?
Did he realize he was wrong when:
-Felix Arroyo wrote him a series of letters telling him that his actions of having 6 councilors in a room discuss the public business, then rotating people in and out of the room so other councilors could join in the discussion but they could exclude the press and the public from the goings on of government? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when the District Attorney wrote him a letter telling him that his actions were illegal? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when I, along with Shirley Kressel and Kathleen Devine filed a lawsuit outlining all of the abuses we had been able to find about? NO
-Did he talk with us or meet with us when we offered him the olive branch to settle the suit and craft better Open Meeting Laws? NO
-Did he take the opportunity to revisit the worst decision he made as a councilor (by his own words) and take back some control and accountability over the BRA? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong when Superior Court Judge Holtz wrote a scathing decision telling him he was wrong on all counts? NO
-Did he realize he was wrong after hiring a $600 an hour lawyer at taxpayer expense to fight the decision in the appeals court and losing there as well? NO
-Did he admit he was wrong after the City Council admitted guilt on all violations this past November? NO
After nearly 4 years of wasting taxpayer time and money which could have gone to the schools or keeping the streets safe, Michael Flaherty admits guilt. Well, I don't buy it. As Mayor he would not be subject to the Open Meeting Law, and he could meet in the Mayor's office at City Hall behind closed doors with anyone he pleases. With a track record like his, who trusts him?
Notice that he has not proposed, as I have, ways to make the City more transparent:
1) Post all expenses of the City of Boston and the BRA online
2) Craft the toughest Open Meeting Laws in the country.
3) Eliminate the BRA and create a city planning agency so that we have accountability, not a "pay to play" situation for developers.
4) Eliminate No Bid Contracts
If he really cares about transparency I call on him to do the following:
1) In his YOUTUBE video, Michael says we have to eliminate back room deals at City Hall. Since he is now paying big bucks for internet consultants, I call on him to post a list of all the back room deals he is aware of on his website. Let the citizens know how bad the situation is at City Hall.
2) Post a list of all the Boston clients of his law firm Adler, Pollock, and Sheehan. Let the citizens know if he will still be working as an attorney if he is elected Mayor, available to be hired to consult on real estate and business matters in Boston as he is now.
3) Hold a public hearing of all the city councilors where citizens are allowed to ask questions about all the back room deals that have gone on under his watch.
4) Take some of his campaign funds and pay back the citizens of Boston for all the money he took from us while he was fighting against transparency at City Hall.
This is not leadership. This is jumping on my bandwagon of bringing Open, Honest, Professional, Transparent government to the citizens of Boston. Please visit my website for an outline of a true progressive government for the citizens. I ask for your vote and your support.
Thank You,
Kevin McCrea
Will the Mayor be Transparent?
The Mayor says he will be transparent with the budget. I will take him at his word. I sent my first questions off to Lisa Signori today to try and find out why the Mayor is proposing a 6.25% budget increase when the rest of the world is trying to stay at even keel.
For Lisa Signori:
1) In her presentation she said our interest income will be down 20 million dollars. What is the source of the principle of that 20 million dollars? How much is it, and where is it kept? How much did we receive in FY 2009 and how much is she projecting in FY 2010.
2) She indicates 11 million additional dollars in interest payment and debt payment. What is our debt payment amount, how much debt do we have, and what interest are we paying in FY 2009 vs. FY 2010.
3) The $55 million dollars for additional salaries she projects is a 5% increase of 2009 vs. 2010. Why does she project a 5% increase in salary, is that what the union contracts the Mayor negotiated called for?
Thank You,
kevin mccrea
For Lisa Signori:
1) In her presentation she said our interest income will be down 20 million dollars. What is the source of the principle of that 20 million dollars? How much is it, and where is it kept? How much did we receive in FY 2009 and how much is she projecting in FY 2010.
2) She indicates 11 million additional dollars in interest payment and debt payment. What is our debt payment amount, how much debt do we have, and what interest are we paying in FY 2009 vs. FY 2010.
3) The $55 million dollars for additional salaries she projects is a 5% increase of 2009 vs. 2010. Why does she project a 5% increase in salary, is that what the union contracts the Mayor negotiated called for?
Thank You,
kevin mccrea
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Boston City Budget
I attended Monday's meeting between Lisa Signori and the Mayor's budget people and the City council. It was held in the Curley room, not the City Council chambers and thus could not be televised so anyone interested in the budget could see what was going on. Not very transparent.
First of all, there is no real budget deficit. The fiscal year 2010 budget will be larger than the fiscal year 2009 budget by an "anemic" 11 million dollars. The city is going to increase property taxes by 61 million dollars on the citizens, an increase of 4.5 percent from this year. This "deficit" that the Mayor is talking about is a deficit because he wants to increase the budget by 6.25 % next year according to Mrs. Signori.
The 140 million they say they are short breaks down as follows:
55 million dollars in salary increases to city personnel (5% increase per employee!)
33 million dollars in higher health care costs (12 % increase!)
15 million dollars more in additional pension costs (up 7%!)
11 million dollars in increased interest and debt service (???)
24 million dollars in increased department budgets (over and above payroll!)
13 million dollars in additional payments to the state (Charter schools & MBTA)
__________________________________________________________
$151 million
-(11 million increase in revenue)
$140 million
Lisa explained that this budget planned on 49 million in cuts from the state but that the cuts will more likely be about 40 to 42 million. There is 7 to 9 million.
We have 110 million dollars in reserves. We are also expecting a 22 million cut in state aid in fiscal year 2008.
Then John Dunlap, the Mayor's labor relations person spoke. He was explaining the Mayor' proposed wage freeze to the city's 24 unions. It was very interesting the term he used "wage deferral". In other words, if the unions go along with this wage deferral for 364 days (enough time to get Menino re-elected?) that then the Mayor would make it up to the unions. John explained that the average salary for a city employee was $60,000 per year. If they can implement the wage freeze they estimate they can save 900 jobs. This would save the 55 million dollars in salary increases, and the raises would be given on the last day of the fiscal year so that pensions, steps, etc. would still be realized in that fiscal year.
Councilor Flaherty asked how we were going to pay for the contracts the City signed this year. Lisa explained to him that every year in the budget money is set aside ahead of time anticipating these contract signings. I was surprised Mike didn't know this after his many years on the council. He voted for raises for all council staff just last August, after Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy sent a report to the council that we had money left over from this fund to be able to afford raises for all council staff. This has been a line item in the budget for as long as I've been paying attention.
Another thing that Lisa didn't explain to the councilors and which no one seems aware is that every year the proposed budget is conservative and usually forecasts revenue at about 50 million below what it actually will be. Conservative forecasting is good, but the Mayor and the budget people should be honest with the citizens about this. So, when the question was asked about how we will handle the 22 million shortfall in state aid, they didn't give a direct answer. The answer should be: we have a 50 million dollar slush fund so we can absorb this.
Bottom line: why is the Mayor proposing a 6.25% increase in the City Budget when the cost of living is nearly flat, and people are struggling just to hold onto their jobs. There clearly is enough money to afford the police and teachers that this city needs. The Mayor has increased the city payroll by 1200 people over the last 5 years, only 200 are cops and 75 are teachers. What do those other 925 do? Why does he use scare tactics against police and teachers? It is not honorable or honest.
When I am elected Mayor, if there have been any cuts in police and teachers in the next year, I will put those people back on the payroll in my first 100 days in office.
Tomorrow: My solutions to the budget "crisis".
First of all, there is no real budget deficit. The fiscal year 2010 budget will be larger than the fiscal year 2009 budget by an "anemic" 11 million dollars. The city is going to increase property taxes by 61 million dollars on the citizens, an increase of 4.5 percent from this year. This "deficit" that the Mayor is talking about is a deficit because he wants to increase the budget by 6.25 % next year according to Mrs. Signori.
The 140 million they say they are short breaks down as follows:
55 million dollars in salary increases to city personnel (5% increase per employee!)
33 million dollars in higher health care costs (12 % increase!)
15 million dollars more in additional pension costs (up 7%!)
11 million dollars in increased interest and debt service (???)
24 million dollars in increased department budgets (over and above payroll!)
13 million dollars in additional payments to the state (Charter schools & MBTA)
__________________________________________________________
$151 million
-(11 million increase in revenue)
$140 million
Lisa explained that this budget planned on 49 million in cuts from the state but that the cuts will more likely be about 40 to 42 million. There is 7 to 9 million.
We have 110 million dollars in reserves. We are also expecting a 22 million cut in state aid in fiscal year 2008.
Then John Dunlap, the Mayor's labor relations person spoke. He was explaining the Mayor' proposed wage freeze to the city's 24 unions. It was very interesting the term he used "wage deferral". In other words, if the unions go along with this wage deferral for 364 days (enough time to get Menino re-elected?) that then the Mayor would make it up to the unions. John explained that the average salary for a city employee was $60,000 per year. If they can implement the wage freeze they estimate they can save 900 jobs. This would save the 55 million dollars in salary increases, and the raises would be given on the last day of the fiscal year so that pensions, steps, etc. would still be realized in that fiscal year.
Councilor Flaherty asked how we were going to pay for the contracts the City signed this year. Lisa explained to him that every year in the budget money is set aside ahead of time anticipating these contract signings. I was surprised Mike didn't know this after his many years on the council. He voted for raises for all council staff just last August, after Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy sent a report to the council that we had money left over from this fund to be able to afford raises for all council staff. This has been a line item in the budget for as long as I've been paying attention.
Another thing that Lisa didn't explain to the councilors and which no one seems aware is that every year the proposed budget is conservative and usually forecasts revenue at about 50 million below what it actually will be. Conservative forecasting is good, but the Mayor and the budget people should be honest with the citizens about this. So, when the question was asked about how we will handle the 22 million shortfall in state aid, they didn't give a direct answer. The answer should be: we have a 50 million dollar slush fund so we can absorb this.
Bottom line: why is the Mayor proposing a 6.25% increase in the City Budget when the cost of living is nearly flat, and people are struggling just to hold onto their jobs. There clearly is enough money to afford the police and teachers that this city needs. The Mayor has increased the city payroll by 1200 people over the last 5 years, only 200 are cops and 75 are teachers. What do those other 925 do? Why does he use scare tactics against police and teachers? It is not honorable or honest.
When I am elected Mayor, if there have been any cuts in police and teachers in the next year, I will put those people back on the payroll in my first 100 days in office.
Tomorrow: My solutions to the budget "crisis".
Late night thoughts...
I was super busy today: on the jobsite in jeans in the morning, then into the suit for the City Council's briefing on the budget by Lisa Signori, back into the work clothes in the afternoon, hire two campaign staff, then off to a community meeting with the BRA at the convention center. Now business paperwork, answering emails, etc.
Some thoughts that I will expand on later: if the budget crisis is so bad, and the Mayor is so concerned about it, why doesn't he come over and meet with the City Councilors to try and figure out the problems. What else is he doing on a Monday morning at 10:30 that is possibly more important that working through the fiscal crisis. If I was Mayor, I would sit down with the city councilors myself, and try and find real solutions, instead of hiding behind Lisa Signori. Not real leadership in my estimation.
The City councilors seemed concerned, although 3 of them didn't even show up for what is clearly the most important item on the city agenda. They asked some questions, but not the tough thorough questions that need to be asked. After the meeting I was speaking to one of the councilors that said we could save millions by bringing the cities pensions and health care in conjunction with the State's program, something I have advocated. But, the councilor said they couldn't get anywhere with it because of the Mayor and some of the unions. In these tough times, if you know a way to save millions you need to speak out. Again, this is not leadership, and if I was Mayor I would be looking for every cost saving measure I could so that we could maintain safe streets, and build much better schools than we have now.
More later on the specifics of the Mayor's smoke and mirrors budget. The bottom line is that there is no $140 million shortfall, there will be no cuts in police or schools, it is just that when the rest of America is trying to tread water, the Mayor wants to increase the City budget by 6.25 %. Plus, the Mayor and Lisa Signori promised that property taxes will go up by 61 million dollars next year in FY 2010.
I will be on Joe Heisler's Talk of the Neighborhoods tomorrow night at 7 pm!
Some thoughts that I will expand on later: if the budget crisis is so bad, and the Mayor is so concerned about it, why doesn't he come over and meet with the City Councilors to try and figure out the problems. What else is he doing on a Monday morning at 10:30 that is possibly more important that working through the fiscal crisis. If I was Mayor, I would sit down with the city councilors myself, and try and find real solutions, instead of hiding behind Lisa Signori. Not real leadership in my estimation.
The City councilors seemed concerned, although 3 of them didn't even show up for what is clearly the most important item on the city agenda. They asked some questions, but not the tough thorough questions that need to be asked. After the meeting I was speaking to one of the councilors that said we could save millions by bringing the cities pensions and health care in conjunction with the State's program, something I have advocated. But, the councilor said they couldn't get anywhere with it because of the Mayor and some of the unions. In these tough times, if you know a way to save millions you need to speak out. Again, this is not leadership, and if I was Mayor I would be looking for every cost saving measure I could so that we could maintain safe streets, and build much better schools than we have now.
More later on the specifics of the Mayor's smoke and mirrors budget. The bottom line is that there is no $140 million shortfall, there will be no cuts in police or schools, it is just that when the rest of America is trying to tread water, the Mayor wants to increase the City budget by 6.25 %. Plus, the Mayor and Lisa Signori promised that property taxes will go up by 61 million dollars next year in FY 2010.
I will be on Joe Heisler's Talk of the Neighborhoods tomorrow night at 7 pm!
Monday, January 26, 2009
My statement about the budget
Dear Council:
Thank you for holding this hearing today. With the economy in a downturn, many people are concerned with how our valuable tax dollars are being spent.
First of all, I would like to assure all of the police officers and teachers in the City of Boston that there is more than enough money in the budget to retain your important jobs, if the proper financial decisions are made by our elected leaders.
I am here to ask for more honesty and transparency from City Hall on the budget. We have heard the number of $140 million deficit thrown around by the Mayor, but he refuses to disclose what adds up to $140 million, and he uses the scare tactic of threatening to lay off police and teachers to try and increase taxes. I applaud and support the members of the council who have stepped up and said there will be no cuts to police or teachers. This is an honest response.
Shame on City Hall for scaring schoolchildren and parents and the people on our streets by floating the idea that teachers and police officers need to be laid off. We need honesty and fiscal responsibility about the budget.
Also remember this is a budget shortfall for a proposed budget that is 6.25% larger than the one we are in right now. Why do we need to increase the budget 6.25 percent a year, when the cost of living only goes up approximately 3 percent a year? The price of gas, labor and other goods is down, why do we have to keep paying more?
In the last 5 years City Hall has grown the number of city employees by 7 percent or about 1200 workers. Of those, only about 200 are police officers and 75 are teachers. Surely, no one is more important than them, why aren’t we talking about laying off the other 925 non-essential workers the city lived with 4 years ago first before threatening our first responders and children’s educators. In addition, the city council has increased its central staff by 8.5% in just the last two years.
We need more fiscal responsibility. When the Fiscal Year 2010 budget came out last July it already had a projected deficit of 33 million dollars. What did the Mayor and City Council do in response to this looming crisis, while the rest of America was tightening its belt? The City Council held a hearing attended to by only two members where they suggested raises for all city council staff. That passed the full council without objection. The Mayor in the fall gave raises to all of his department heads, then made the raises retroactive 10 months, effectively giving them bonuses. This is not the type of fiscal responsibility we need in the face of a budget deficit.
The question must be asked: Why did City Hall give the right to the parking revenues from our Winthrop Square garage to the BRA, and why does the BRA's RFP for the redevelopment of the site state that the BRA will be the landlord collecting the rent on the land -- when the City could, and should, simply sell it to collect over $100 million, and then receive annual tax income or collect the land rent for our City budget?
I applaud the City Council talking about one of my big concerns: transparency. However, 11 days ago I wrote to Councilor Ross and requested financial data. No reply whatsoever, even though it is required by law within 10 days. Talking about transparency and actually working towards transparency are two different things.
I’d like to end with one example. Two years ago the City Council added a full time position to its staff to hire Paul Walkowski. The City Council hired Mr. Walkowski to write a long report about how the City Council could get around transparency or exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law. The City has now payed him over $100,000 for his ideas on this matter
If any teacher or police officer gets laid off, or any cut gets made to education funding, call your Mayor and City Councilor and ask them what are we paying Paul Walkowski to do and how is that more important than keeping our streets safe and our children being educated. I understand Mr. Walkowski is going to retire soon, we need to change the City Law back to the way it was before the Mayor and Council amended the law to add this position and save the taxpayers the salary and perks that go with this useless job.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. With the economy in a downturn, many people are concerned with how our valuable tax dollars are being spent.
First of all, I would like to assure all of the police officers and teachers in the City of Boston that there is more than enough money in the budget to retain your important jobs, if the proper financial decisions are made by our elected leaders.
I am here to ask for more honesty and transparency from City Hall on the budget. We have heard the number of $140 million deficit thrown around by the Mayor, but he refuses to disclose what adds up to $140 million, and he uses the scare tactic of threatening to lay off police and teachers to try and increase taxes. I applaud and support the members of the council who have stepped up and said there will be no cuts to police or teachers. This is an honest response.
Shame on City Hall for scaring schoolchildren and parents and the people on our streets by floating the idea that teachers and police officers need to be laid off. We need honesty and fiscal responsibility about the budget.
Also remember this is a budget shortfall for a proposed budget that is 6.25% larger than the one we are in right now. Why do we need to increase the budget 6.25 percent a year, when the cost of living only goes up approximately 3 percent a year? The price of gas, labor and other goods is down, why do we have to keep paying more?
In the last 5 years City Hall has grown the number of city employees by 7 percent or about 1200 workers. Of those, only about 200 are police officers and 75 are teachers. Surely, no one is more important than them, why aren’t we talking about laying off the other 925 non-essential workers the city lived with 4 years ago first before threatening our first responders and children’s educators. In addition, the city council has increased its central staff by 8.5% in just the last two years.
We need more fiscal responsibility. When the Fiscal Year 2010 budget came out last July it already had a projected deficit of 33 million dollars. What did the Mayor and City Council do in response to this looming crisis, while the rest of America was tightening its belt? The City Council held a hearing attended to by only two members where they suggested raises for all city council staff. That passed the full council without objection. The Mayor in the fall gave raises to all of his department heads, then made the raises retroactive 10 months, effectively giving them bonuses. This is not the type of fiscal responsibility we need in the face of a budget deficit.
The question must be asked: Why did City Hall give the right to the parking revenues from our Winthrop Square garage to the BRA, and why does the BRA's RFP for the redevelopment of the site state that the BRA will be the landlord collecting the rent on the land -- when the City could, and should, simply sell it to collect over $100 million, and then receive annual tax income or collect the land rent for our City budget?
I applaud the City Council talking about one of my big concerns: transparency. However, 11 days ago I wrote to Councilor Ross and requested financial data. No reply whatsoever, even though it is required by law within 10 days. Talking about transparency and actually working towards transparency are two different things.
I’d like to end with one example. Two years ago the City Council added a full time position to its staff to hire Paul Walkowski. The City Council hired Mr. Walkowski to write a long report about how the City Council could get around transparency or exempt itself from the Open Meeting Law. The City has now payed him over $100,000 for his ideas on this matter
If any teacher or police officer gets laid off, or any cut gets made to education funding, call your Mayor and City Councilor and ask them what are we paying Paul Walkowski to do and how is that more important than keeping our streets safe and our children being educated. I understand Mr. Walkowski is going to retire soon, we need to change the City Law back to the way it was before the Mayor and Council amended the law to add this position and save the taxpayers the salary and perks that go with this useless job.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Menino is not transparent about the budget
In one of the articles about my announcement for Mayor, they get a comment from Dot Joyce the Mayor's press spokesperson who says that the Mayor is transparent about the budget. But, as is so often the case, he is not being honest. Ed Mason from the Herald asked for information for his January 15, 2009 article about the budget and the Mayor refused to provide information. That is not being transparent. The quote from Mr. Mason is: "Menino and his aides declined Herald requests for city budget documents detailing grim losses ahead." I know I stopped believing what the Mayor has been telling the public years ago.
My Interview with NECN
I just did an interview with NECN. They asked Michael Flaherty to do an interview but apparently he is not yet ready for prime time, and isn't giving interviews.
Writer, blogger, Paul McMorrow endorses Kevin McCrea!
Paul McMorrow, who works for Banker and Tradesman and Boston magazine, and has his own personal blog endorsed my candidacy on his blog! Now he only endorsed me until someone else got in the race, I hope I can still fight hard for his endorsement now that Flaherty is in. I first learned of Paul when he was a writer for the Weekly Dig and he helped to expose the secret meetings that Flaherty was running.
Thanks Paul!
Thanks Paul!
Questions about Flaherty (and Yoon and Menino) and Transparency
According to the Boston Globe and Boston Herald and you can see the video at Universal Hub Michael Flaherty sort of announced that he is running for Mayor.
As you can see in his video he talked about the need for Transparent Government! I'm happy to hear that Michael is following my lead on calling for transparent government. However, I am not convinced that his call for transparency is very heartfelt, nor are the other officials in City Hall.
While he was City Council President he rejected numerous letters from Councilor Felix Arroyo asking him to stop holding secret meetings with other councilors and with the Boston Redevelopment Authority. He refused my numerous olive branch offers to sit down and settle the Open Meeting Lawsuit, "McCrea v. Flaherty" and to craft better Open Meeting Laws. He refused my olive branch to allow him to revisit the vote giving the BRA 10 more years of power with no oversight. In response to a question in the last election cycle about what the one thing he wished he could redo, he cited that example as the worst decision he has made.
Most recently, I wrote a letter to the Mayor, the City Councilors at Large, President Ross, and my City Councilor Turner requesting that they make City Government and the BRA at least as transparent as Sarah Palin's Alaska. The response so far? Deafening silence. Not a single response from any of them. Saying you care about transparency and working towards it are two completely different things.
One of the things that goes along with transparency is disclosure of your possible conflicting interests. He is an attorney at the law firm of Adler Pollock & Sheehan. According to his biography on their website you can hire Michael for business and corporate law, and real estate matters. It would seem to me to be a conflict of interest that you can hire a city councilor to do legal work on business and real estate deals on the side. If he truly cares about being transparent he should disclose all the Boston clients of Adler Pollock and Sheehan.
I would also like to ask him if he will continue working as an attorney if he gets elected Mayor. If not, why is it okay for a member of the legislative branch to do side legal work but not the executive branch? I would consider either job a full time job I was hired to do by my constituents.
Finally, with Councilor Flaherty's new found interest in transparency I invite him to Courtroom 306, at Suffolk Superior Courthouse on February 24, 2008 at 2 pm. That is when the next, and hopefully final hearing in the "Kevin McCrea v. Michael Flaherty" Open Meeting lawsuit will be held. While I have been fighting for nearly four years for transparency on behalf of the citizens of Boston, Councilor Flaherty has been fighting hard against transparency and has yet to show up once in court on this matter. Instead, he has been hiding behind a phalanx of taxpayer paid lawyers, filing numerous motions delaying and denying the charges, spending nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money, before finally admitting guilt.
Just to bring everyone up to speed about this hearing, I have filed papers with the court requesting that the Judge impose rules furthering transparency at Boston City Hall. Michael Flaherty's lawyers, on his and the councils behalf, (and at our expense) have filed papers that the rules at City Hall are perfectly fine and that everything should stay the same. The judge will hear testimony, and decide the sanctions since Michael Flaherty and the Boston City Council have admitted violating the law on all counts alleged in the case.
I look forward to seeing Michael Flaherty there, and hearing his testimony as to why the current transparency rules at City Hall are perfectly fine. If he really cares about saving taxpayer money why doesn't he just call off his taxpayer paid attorney's and come on his own, after all he is an attorney. I will be speaking on my own, despite the fact that I am not a trained attorney. I don't need to hire someone to speak on my behalf about my thoughts on transparency. I'm sure the Judge and the citizens of Boston would be very interested in his thoughts on transparency.
In his Youtube video Michael talks about "accountability and direct responsibility". Part of that is being responsible for your actions. A contrite apology to the court, and to the citizens on Boston for holding closed meetings for years, wasting the courts and taxpayers time and money, would go a long way towards making me believe he now believes in transparency.
As your Mayor, I would make Boston the most transparent and accountable city in the world. All transactions, job postings, legislation, income, expense, etc. would be available on line. Until the Mayor and his other challengers set the bar that high, you know they don't truly care about getting rid of the back room deals.
As you can see in his video he talked about the need for Transparent Government! I'm happy to hear that Michael is following my lead on calling for transparent government. However, I am not convinced that his call for transparency is very heartfelt, nor are the other officials in City Hall.
While he was City Council President he rejected numerous letters from Councilor Felix Arroyo asking him to stop holding secret meetings with other councilors and with the Boston Redevelopment Authority. He refused my numerous olive branch offers to sit down and settle the Open Meeting Lawsuit, "McCrea v. Flaherty" and to craft better Open Meeting Laws. He refused my olive branch to allow him to revisit the vote giving the BRA 10 more years of power with no oversight. In response to a question in the last election cycle about what the one thing he wished he could redo, he cited that example as the worst decision he has made.
Most recently, I wrote a letter to the Mayor, the City Councilors at Large, President Ross, and my City Councilor Turner requesting that they make City Government and the BRA at least as transparent as Sarah Palin's Alaska. The response so far? Deafening silence. Not a single response from any of them. Saying you care about transparency and working towards it are two completely different things.
One of the things that goes along with transparency is disclosure of your possible conflicting interests. He is an attorney at the law firm of Adler Pollock & Sheehan. According to his biography on their website you can hire Michael for business and corporate law, and real estate matters. It would seem to me to be a conflict of interest that you can hire a city councilor to do legal work on business and real estate deals on the side. If he truly cares about being transparent he should disclose all the Boston clients of Adler Pollock and Sheehan.
I would also like to ask him if he will continue working as an attorney if he gets elected Mayor. If not, why is it okay for a member of the legislative branch to do side legal work but not the executive branch? I would consider either job a full time job I was hired to do by my constituents.
Finally, with Councilor Flaherty's new found interest in transparency I invite him to Courtroom 306, at Suffolk Superior Courthouse on February 24, 2008 at 2 pm. That is when the next, and hopefully final hearing in the "Kevin McCrea v. Michael Flaherty" Open Meeting lawsuit will be held. While I have been fighting for nearly four years for transparency on behalf of the citizens of Boston, Councilor Flaherty has been fighting hard against transparency and has yet to show up once in court on this matter. Instead, he has been hiding behind a phalanx of taxpayer paid lawyers, filing numerous motions delaying and denying the charges, spending nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money, before finally admitting guilt.
Just to bring everyone up to speed about this hearing, I have filed papers with the court requesting that the Judge impose rules furthering transparency at Boston City Hall. Michael Flaherty's lawyers, on his and the councils behalf, (and at our expense) have filed papers that the rules at City Hall are perfectly fine and that everything should stay the same. The judge will hear testimony, and decide the sanctions since Michael Flaherty and the Boston City Council have admitted violating the law on all counts alleged in the case.
I look forward to seeing Michael Flaherty there, and hearing his testimony as to why the current transparency rules at City Hall are perfectly fine. If he really cares about saving taxpayer money why doesn't he just call off his taxpayer paid attorney's and come on his own, after all he is an attorney. I will be speaking on my own, despite the fact that I am not a trained attorney. I don't need to hire someone to speak on my behalf about my thoughts on transparency. I'm sure the Judge and the citizens of Boston would be very interested in his thoughts on transparency.
In his Youtube video Michael talks about "accountability and direct responsibility". Part of that is being responsible for your actions. A contrite apology to the court, and to the citizens on Boston for holding closed meetings for years, wasting the courts and taxpayers time and money, would go a long way towards making me believe he now believes in transparency.
As your Mayor, I would make Boston the most transparent and accountable city in the world. All transactions, job postings, legislation, income, expense, etc. would be available on line. Until the Mayor and his other challengers set the bar that high, you know they don't truly care about getting rid of the back room deals.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Press Release-I'm running for Mayor!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-Campaign to Elect Kevin McCrea Mayor of Boston!
January 22, 2009
“I am running for Mayor of the City of Boston,” announced Kevin McCrea. “It’s time for a change at City Hall, and I will bring that change.”
“We need to end the cycle of career politicians. I am a businessman, and I am running as a common citizen. I’m independent, I’m informed, I have fresh ideas -- and I believe in honest government that includes the citizens. I’m not locked into a political system that dictates I must ‘go along to get along,’” states McCrea.
“I am going to end the waste and abuse in Boston City government. I will ensure that all of our public officials, boards and agencies are held accountable for their decisions. Honest, open and accountable government will enable us to build an exemplary school system based on neighborhood schools, to lower taxes, and to provide better services to all our citizens. Under my leadership, Boston will have great public schools, the safest streets, and the most environmentally green government,” McCrea promised.
McCrea is well known as a good-government activist who asks the tough questions. But he’s proven he’s not just all talk. In 2005 he sued the Boston City Council for violations of the open meeting law, and after a four-year struggle, he has won. His blog, http://electkevin.blogspot.com/, talks about big issues: Why has Mayor Tom Menino given away hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of City-owned property to the BRA? Why doesn’t Boston have transparent government? Why have the ranks of City Hall employees increased, while the population stays level and student enrollment falls?
McCrea is passionate when it comes to our schools and the education of our youth. “We have so much administrative staff. We should use more of our resources for teachers, to reduce our class size,” says McCrea. “I’m going to do my homework and report on where our money is going, so we can finally give our kids what they need to succeed.”
McCrea is a resident of the South End. His company, Wabash Construction, has built several “Best of Boston” projects, and specializes in historic renovations. His developments have been recognized by the National Parks Service for their historic significance, and even awarded historic tax credits. In 2002, he completed a BRA project in Roxbury and voluntarily sold 20% of the units as affordable housing.
McCrea has a long history of civic involvement, working with the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans and Boston Community Capital in Roxbury and Habitat for Humanity in New Orleans.
McCrea has been active in the Big Brother/Big Sister program and coached South End youth baseball. He served as an advisor for the carpentry program at Madison Park Trade School in Roxbury.
McCrea is an active member of the Claremont Neighborhood association and a member of the Ward 9 democratic committee.
He is kicking off his campaign tonight at 7:00 pm at the home of Kevin Barry and Barry Mullen, 55 St. Marks Road, Dorchester, MA 02124.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Great Obama Inauguration Party tonight co-hosted with Amanda Barros and MoveOn.org
We had a great party tonight in honor of the inauguration of Barack Obama. Young and old, people of all persuasions came to together to celebrate the end of the worst presidency in my lifetime, and the hope that positive change has come to America.
We were graced by the presence of native American poet Blackfoot Warrior who honored our guests and me with an original poem:
Our People's Struggle
We believe We believe
Now It's Done! A change has come
You've been swore in,
But your not alone do you stand we the
people will be with you hand-hand
With the strength of the people behind you
The course you will stay,
Upon your shoulders lot's of pressure
been laid.
We the people just that with your
guidance, wisdom, knowledge you'll
bring us out of the is darken tunnel
for in you vision you can see the light
cause our vision and yours are the same
make the future brighter
That's why we believe in change and you
all Americans are (one) weather
red, white, black or blue
that change has come for me and you!
Our Co-host Amanda chimed in:
Hey Kevin,
I just wanted to give you kudos for opening up your house to the community to celebrate this monumental moment in our lives. I think we did an amazing job inviting people who are very open-minded and seemed committed in helping out with changing the world. I thought it was really cool how the older people who attended the event were eager to mingle with the younger folks. After leaving and during the course of the night, my friends and i joked on how random and "mixed" the party was. We all thought it was cool to be around older people who are very inspirational, educated and friendly. Not say that the professors and administrators are not like that at UMASS but, we've never interacted with them in a setting like last night. Anyways, i can ramble about last night but, I'll end it here.
Lastly, my friends wanted to send you a huge thank you and said they'll friend request you (on Facebook) to keep in touch. I tagged all of them your recent wall photo so it would be easier for you and them to make that connection. For future parties, you might consider ordering more food.lol Alright, my vacation is officially over and now i have to get myself back in the school mode.
Peace,
Monday, January 19, 2009
Menino-Why let the facts or his ignorance get in the way of a good story
I was at the City Year Celebration and March today for Martin Luther King day. Sonia Chang Diaz gave a great speech using the african proverb about moving your feet to inspire the "young hereos" to not just talk about change but to actually move your feet and change things.
Mayor Menino on the other hand was his usual self. He did inspire me a bit by saying that "You don't have to wait, you can lead today!" Maybe he is hinting that he is going to step aside for some more youthful leadership?
But, to inspire the kids he told them to look at Obama, that he "started off at a public housing development in Chicago and now he is President". That sure sounds nice but it isn't even remotely true. But then facts aren't always the Mayor's strong suit.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Mayor who actually knew what he was talking about, or who had a fact checker look over his speeches? Obama was in Indonesia in private schools until he was 10, and then he lived in Hawaii and went to the most prestigious private school in Honolulu until he went to private colleges Occidental, and Columbia. Only after all of that did Obama go to Chicago to work as community organizer.
The fact is that only 1 in 8 kids who goes to the public high schools that Menino has provided will get any sort of college or associates degree. I do know that Tom is smart enough not to give that fact to the Boston youth in front of him.
Mayor Menino on the other hand was his usual self. He did inspire me a bit by saying that "You don't have to wait, you can lead today!" Maybe he is hinting that he is going to step aside for some more youthful leadership?
But, to inspire the kids he told them to look at Obama, that he "started off at a public housing development in Chicago and now he is President". That sure sounds nice but it isn't even remotely true. But then facts aren't always the Mayor's strong suit.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Mayor who actually knew what he was talking about, or who had a fact checker look over his speeches? Obama was in Indonesia in private schools until he was 10, and then he lived in Hawaii and went to the most prestigious private school in Honolulu until he went to private colleges Occidental, and Columbia. Only after all of that did Obama go to Chicago to work as community organizer.
The fact is that only 1 in 8 kids who goes to the public high schools that Menino has provided will get any sort of college or associates degree. I do know that Tom is smart enough not to give that fact to the Boston youth in front of him.
Violence, tragedy in South End-MLK would not be pleased
My friend Carlos and his friends were coming home from celebrating last night about 2 a.m. on Tremont Street in the South End. Two black males, one of them looking like "the guy with the dreadlocks in the movie Predator" drove by in a late model black Ford Bronco like vehicle and made some gay bashing comments. One of Carlos' friends yelled back. The large males got out of the Bronco and beat up two of the 3 guys, breaking the nose of one of them getting blood all over everyone. He spent the night at BMC and now has to get facial reconstruction surgery.
A terrible way to start off MLK day, especially on the Eve of the Obama inauguration.
The license plate of the vehicle started with "WJ9..." If anyone has any information please contact the police, who responded to the incident, or if you need to be anonymous send me an email.
A terrible way to start off MLK day, especially on the Eve of the Obama inauguration.
The license plate of the vehicle started with "WJ9..." If anyone has any information please contact the police, who responded to the incident, or if you need to be anonymous send me an email.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Mayor Menino doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or sharing
I was honored a couple of months ago when the South End News contacted me about writing an opinion column for them. I was even more impressed when they told me I could write about anything I want, from physics, to motorcycles, to corruption at City Hall.
After just two columns written the Mayor's people have already contacted my editors to complain about my columns, and to complain that (God forbid!) I am contacting City Hall and asking for information! They are already complaining about columns that I haven't even written yet that I am getting research on!
You read that right. The government is complaining to the press, that a citizen has the audacity to ask the government for information. Call me crazy, but the government that I believe in answers the questions of not just the press, but of the citizens that are concerned with what is going on. The national media expressed outrage that Governor Blagojevich would try and control the editorial decisions of the Chicago Tribune. Well, we have the same kind of heavy handedness here at City Hall in Boston.
The Mayor used the phrase "together we can" at his State of the City address. We can't work on unity when the Mayor won't share the information of what goes on in our city. The information belongs to the citizens, not the Mayor. Just like all those blue signs around the City that say "Welcome to Back Bay, Thomas Menino, Mayor" or "Welcome to Jamaica Plain, Thomas Menino, Mayor" they are owned by the people, payed for by the people, and installed by the people. Someday, he won't be Mayor and the people are going to have to spend the money to change those signs. If he wants to look for ways to start saving money, he will stop requiring that his name goes on everything. Until he does that simple money saving step, you know his ego is getting in the way of fiscal reform and progress in this city.
I suggest that if the Mayor doesn't like what I have written, that he sit down and pen an opposition. I'm sure the South End News would be delighted to receive a thought piece from our honorable Mayor. In fact, I will gladly give him my space in the paper and even donate my salary to a worthy cause. Instead, he resorts to his backroom, out of sight tactics to try and control what is going on. Needless to say, but I'm not impressed nor surprised by his actions.
A former City Hall employee was listening to my phone conversation with my editor, and the employee told me a story about a former Menino aid who boasted to him about how years ago after another South End citizen wrote a letter to the editor of one of the local papers critical of the Mayor, the aid was told to go digging around the house of that citizen looking for violations to punish that person. I haven't checked the veracity of the story, but the sad truth is that in this city people easily believe that our Mayor could be that sort of petty and vindictive person.
What I do know is that when I ran for City Council four years ago, and was openly critical of the Mayor, that the assessment of my family's home at 218 West Springfield Street was increased by $700,000 dollars despite the fact that we hadn't done any improvements in years. As far as I can tell by the online City Assessment Records, the house is still the highest assessed brownstone in the South End. I've spent some time looking at the records, asking brokers and historical people what the most expensive properties sold are. That's right, here on unassuming West Springfield Street is supposedly the most expensive house in the South End. More expensive than the mansions on Union Park, or the secluded charm of Montgomery Park with their private garden. Check it out for yourself, and if you find one assessed higher please let me know. You would think the Mayor would give me an award for taking a former condemned crack house and spending nine years hand building the most expensive house. Isn't that what working hard and achieving and rebuilding your neighborhood are all about?
In closing, I'd like to thank again my editors at the South End News for having the courage to stand up to this sort of bullying. This isn't the only time that the Mayor has complained to them about articles they've published, but they've held their ground and believed in the power of the press. I hope the Mayor will take the time to read the first amendment and ponder about what makes this country great.
I won't hold my breath waiting for his personally written response.
After just two columns written the Mayor's people have already contacted my editors to complain about my columns, and to complain that (God forbid!) I am contacting City Hall and asking for information! They are already complaining about columns that I haven't even written yet that I am getting research on!
You read that right. The government is complaining to the press, that a citizen has the audacity to ask the government for information. Call me crazy, but the government that I believe in answers the questions of not just the press, but of the citizens that are concerned with what is going on. The national media expressed outrage that Governor Blagojevich would try and control the editorial decisions of the Chicago Tribune. Well, we have the same kind of heavy handedness here at City Hall in Boston.
The Mayor used the phrase "together we can" at his State of the City address. We can't work on unity when the Mayor won't share the information of what goes on in our city. The information belongs to the citizens, not the Mayor. Just like all those blue signs around the City that say "Welcome to Back Bay, Thomas Menino, Mayor" or "Welcome to Jamaica Plain, Thomas Menino, Mayor" they are owned by the people, payed for by the people, and installed by the people. Someday, he won't be Mayor and the people are going to have to spend the money to change those signs. If he wants to look for ways to start saving money, he will stop requiring that his name goes on everything. Until he does that simple money saving step, you know his ego is getting in the way of fiscal reform and progress in this city.
I suggest that if the Mayor doesn't like what I have written, that he sit down and pen an opposition. I'm sure the South End News would be delighted to receive a thought piece from our honorable Mayor. In fact, I will gladly give him my space in the paper and even donate my salary to a worthy cause. Instead, he resorts to his backroom, out of sight tactics to try and control what is going on. Needless to say, but I'm not impressed nor surprised by his actions.
A former City Hall employee was listening to my phone conversation with my editor, and the employee told me a story about a former Menino aid who boasted to him about how years ago after another South End citizen wrote a letter to the editor of one of the local papers critical of the Mayor, the aid was told to go digging around the house of that citizen looking for violations to punish that person. I haven't checked the veracity of the story, but the sad truth is that in this city people easily believe that our Mayor could be that sort of petty and vindictive person.
What I do know is that when I ran for City Council four years ago, and was openly critical of the Mayor, that the assessment of my family's home at 218 West Springfield Street was increased by $700,000 dollars despite the fact that we hadn't done any improvements in years. As far as I can tell by the online City Assessment Records, the house is still the highest assessed brownstone in the South End. I've spent some time looking at the records, asking brokers and historical people what the most expensive properties sold are. That's right, here on unassuming West Springfield Street is supposedly the most expensive house in the South End. More expensive than the mansions on Union Park, or the secluded charm of Montgomery Park with their private garden. Check it out for yourself, and if you find one assessed higher please let me know. You would think the Mayor would give me an award for taking a former condemned crack house and spending nine years hand building the most expensive house. Isn't that what working hard and achieving and rebuilding your neighborhood are all about?
In closing, I'd like to thank again my editors at the South End News for having the courage to stand up to this sort of bullying. This isn't the only time that the Mayor has complained to them about articles they've published, but they've held their ground and believed in the power of the press. I hope the Mayor will take the time to read the first amendment and ponder about what makes this country great.
I won't hold my breath waiting for his personally written response.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Doug Bennett reports in!
Doug Bennett calls in to report he has gone around the city once and is starting again, in Charlestown. He reports a lot of anger with the corruption at City Hall and that he knocked on over 30,000 doors so far.
Bob Terrell will make his official announcement for at-large later on this month.
Bob Terrell will make his official announcement for at-large later on this month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
