Bob La Trémouille reports:
On July 25, 2008, the following paper was filed: Plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro response to Post-Trial Supplemental Submission of the City of Cambridge.
This follows on several actions since the jury verdict was rendered:
5/23/08: Verdict of Jury for the Plaintiff.
6/19/08: Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for reversal of jury verdict or for reduction of damages.
7/3/08: Defendant's Post-Trial Submissions.
7/15/08: Defendant's Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal.
Please see below for detailed analysis of this matter.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Report on Citizens Advisory Committee on Urban Ring meeting, July 28, 2008
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Introduction.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
c. Summary.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
4. Allston.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments.
1. Introduction.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring met in Boston City Hall on Monday afternoon, July 28, 2008.
The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT, hope I translated right) announced it is expanding on the grossly expensive bus tunnel proposed for the Longwood Medical Area as part of Phase 2, buses, of the Urban Ring transportation proposal.
This expansion would be done through two "alternatives" based on this massive tunnel.
The basic proposal connects buses from Yawkey Station (near Fenway Park and Kenmore) to Louis Pasteur and Longwood (in the heart of the Longwood Medical Area) and then to Ruggles Station. The entire route is underground and very expensive. It would cost $1.5 Billion of a $2.2 Billion project that is supposed to be regional.
The 1.5 mile busway would service two buslines. One is a renumbered CT-2 bus. The other is a renumbered CT-3 bus. It is proposed to have one stop, at Louis Pasteur and Longwood.
Additionally, Boston has proposed an alternative in Allston which would be further west than the existing proposal.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
There are two new alternative tunnel routes proposed. No cost estimates were provided but both would raise the price tag on the tunnel part of the Urban Ring.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
One alternative would move the spot at which the northern end of the tunnel comes out of the ground closer to Yawkey Station.
The purpose of this change is to allow room for a station connecting to the Fenway Park station on the Green Line Riverside line.
This station would bring the tunnel buses much closer to Green Line passengers. This change would, however, require that Longwood passengers travel on only one branch of the Green Line, at least for the last few hundred yards. It would also create a station fairly close to the Kenmore Station on the Urban Ring Phase 3 subway line.
Without this change, the basic proposal would run the renumbered CT-3 Bus to Kenmore from Yawkey to pick up Green Line passengers. That would have quite major traffic impact especially in rush hours.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
The other alternate tunnel would connect to the BU Bridge system. It would turn the bus tunnel at Park Drive / the Fenway Park station rather than going straight ahead toward Yawkey. The bus tunnel would then run under Park Drive and Mountfort. The bus tunnel would turn to the north just before the current BU Bridge roadway system. This tunnel would connect to the highways to be built over the Grand Junction railroad bridge and to the highways proposed to Harvard’s Business, Science and Med School campus in Allston.
Two additional stops are proposed, one at the Fenway Park station apparently connecting to the Riverside and Cleveland Circle lines and the second just south of Commonwealth Avenue in what is now a parking lot, connecting to the Commonwealth Avenue line.
c. Summary.
These alternatives would be in clear violation of the directions of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in her certificate that initiated the current planning process. The Secretary ordered that nothing be done in Phase 2 which would interfere with the options in phase 3.
The bus tunnel connecting to the BU Bridge system would be the BU Bridge crossing. Building that tunnel in Phase 2 would decide which of the two Charles River crossings be would used in Phase 3.
Putting the phase 3 crossing tunnel in phase 2 would decide Phase 3 Charles River crossing determinations AGAINST the Kenmore crossing which is far superior from a transportation and an environmental point of view.
Problems with the change that would only add a Fenway Park station and move the portal slightly are much less major but not insignificant. That new stop would put two stops on the Urban Ring for the Riverside line, pretty close together, this new bus transfer, and the excellent Kenmore Station. This would hurt performance on the Urban Ring and provide no real improvement in service.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
The increasing violations of the secretary’s certificate are very reminiscent of a report an Audubon Circle (Park Drive and Beacon) resident got from a female friend appointed to a Cambridge entity.
My immediate reaction, before hearing anything else, when I heard the friend was a Cambridge appointee, was that the friend should not be trusted because of the lack of trustworthiness of many representatives of the City of Cambridge both disclosed and, much more importantly, undisclosed. This is not a condemnation of each and every member of such committees. Rather, it is recognition that these people can wind up on the receiving end of false statements.
The friend told her that the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing was dead.
Looks like the City of Cambridge or one of its friends is trying to decide the issue without allowing it to be considered.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of figuring out what to do with a jury verdict on civil rights abuses by the Cambridge City Manager. A Middlesex Superior Court jury has found illegal retaliation by the Cambridge City Manager in his firing of a black female department head for filing a civil rights claim.
It looks like the Cambridge City Council will have to decide between appealing the $4.5 million jury verdict or paying it and disciplining the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
Perhaps the environmental dirty tricks will stop under a new City Manager? Firing him would still leave severe problems which would have to be cleared out in the development department. Firing him would not kill the massive army of an organization he and his predecessor have created through the development department over 35 years.
4. Allston.
The City of Boston has proposed an Allston alignment further west, near what is the Brighton Mills (Shaw’s Super Market) complex on Western Avenue.
The chair promised to send me a copy of the letter.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments on 3. c., above:
Your point about Cambridge if and when Healy-Rossi leave is very well taken.
As we're seeing, it's not easy to get rid of a rat infestation following uncontrolled construction projects.
1. Introduction.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
c. Summary.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
4. Allston.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments.
1. Introduction.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring met in Boston City Hall on Monday afternoon, July 28, 2008.
The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT, hope I translated right) announced it is expanding on the grossly expensive bus tunnel proposed for the Longwood Medical Area as part of Phase 2, buses, of the Urban Ring transportation proposal.
This expansion would be done through two "alternatives" based on this massive tunnel.
The basic proposal connects buses from Yawkey Station (near Fenway Park and Kenmore) to Louis Pasteur and Longwood (in the heart of the Longwood Medical Area) and then to Ruggles Station. The entire route is underground and very expensive. It would cost $1.5 Billion of a $2.2 Billion project that is supposed to be regional.
The 1.5 mile busway would service two buslines. One is a renumbered CT-2 bus. The other is a renumbered CT-3 bus. It is proposed to have one stop, at Louis Pasteur and Longwood.
Additionally, Boston has proposed an alternative in Allston which would be further west than the existing proposal.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
There are two new alternative tunnel routes proposed. No cost estimates were provided but both would raise the price tag on the tunnel part of the Urban Ring.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
One alternative would move the spot at which the northern end of the tunnel comes out of the ground closer to Yawkey Station.
The purpose of this change is to allow room for a station connecting to the Fenway Park station on the Green Line Riverside line.
This station would bring the tunnel buses much closer to Green Line passengers. This change would, however, require that Longwood passengers travel on only one branch of the Green Line, at least for the last few hundred yards. It would also create a station fairly close to the Kenmore Station on the Urban Ring Phase 3 subway line.
Without this change, the basic proposal would run the renumbered CT-3 Bus to Kenmore from Yawkey to pick up Green Line passengers. That would have quite major traffic impact especially in rush hours.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
The other alternate tunnel would connect to the BU Bridge system. It would turn the bus tunnel at Park Drive / the Fenway Park station rather than going straight ahead toward Yawkey. The bus tunnel would then run under Park Drive and Mountfort. The bus tunnel would turn to the north just before the current BU Bridge roadway system. This tunnel would connect to the highways to be built over the Grand Junction railroad bridge and to the highways proposed to Harvard’s Business, Science and Med School campus in Allston.
Two additional stops are proposed, one at the Fenway Park station apparently connecting to the Riverside and Cleveland Circle lines and the second just south of Commonwealth Avenue in what is now a parking lot, connecting to the Commonwealth Avenue line.
c. Summary.
These alternatives would be in clear violation of the directions of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in her certificate that initiated the current planning process. The Secretary ordered that nothing be done in Phase 2 which would interfere with the options in phase 3.
The bus tunnel connecting to the BU Bridge system would be the BU Bridge crossing. Building that tunnel in Phase 2 would decide which of the two Charles River crossings be would used in Phase 3.
Putting the phase 3 crossing tunnel in phase 2 would decide Phase 3 Charles River crossing determinations AGAINST the Kenmore crossing which is far superior from a transportation and an environmental point of view.
Problems with the change that would only add a Fenway Park station and move the portal slightly are much less major but not insignificant. That new stop would put two stops on the Urban Ring for the Riverside line, pretty close together, this new bus transfer, and the excellent Kenmore Station. This would hurt performance on the Urban Ring and provide no real improvement in service.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
The increasing violations of the secretary’s certificate are very reminiscent of a report an Audubon Circle (Park Drive and Beacon) resident got from a female friend appointed to a Cambridge entity.
My immediate reaction, before hearing anything else, when I heard the friend was a Cambridge appointee, was that the friend should not be trusted because of the lack of trustworthiness of many representatives of the City of Cambridge both disclosed and, much more importantly, undisclosed. This is not a condemnation of each and every member of such committees. Rather, it is recognition that these people can wind up on the receiving end of false statements.
The friend told her that the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing was dead.
Looks like the City of Cambridge or one of its friends is trying to decide the issue without allowing it to be considered.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of figuring out what to do with a jury verdict on civil rights abuses by the Cambridge City Manager. A Middlesex Superior Court jury has found illegal retaliation by the Cambridge City Manager in his firing of a black female department head for filing a civil rights claim.
It looks like the Cambridge City Council will have to decide between appealing the $4.5 million jury verdict or paying it and disciplining the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
Perhaps the environmental dirty tricks will stop under a new City Manager? Firing him would still leave severe problems which would have to be cleared out in the development department. Firing him would not kill the massive army of an organization he and his predecessor have created through the development department over 35 years.
4. Allston.
The City of Boston has proposed an Allston alignment further west, near what is the Brighton Mills (Shaw’s Super Market) complex on Western Avenue.
The chair promised to send me a copy of the letter.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments on 3. c., above:
Your point about Cambridge if and when Healy-Rossi leave is very well taken.
As we're seeing, it's not easy to get rid of a rat infestation following uncontrolled construction projects.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
To Cambridge City Council: Bar City Manager & City Solicitor from Monteiro Discussions as Advisors
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I mailed the following letter yesterday to the Cambridge City Council:
July 25, 2008
City Council
City of Cambridge
c/o City Clerk
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
RE: Monteiro v. Cambridge
Middlesex County Civil Docket MICV2001-02737
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Soon, the Cambridge City Council will be faced with a decision as to whether the City should appeal the judgment in the Monteiro case or, as the jury would seem to consider appropriate, fire the Cambridge City Manager plus, perhaps, the Cambridge City Solicitor.
The very major penal damages awarded by the jury in addition to major actual damages indicate rather strong contempt by the jury for the behavior of the City of Cambridge in this matter.
Should the City of Cambridge choose to accept the jury decision, a good deal of money is readily available by killing the outrageous environmental projects at Magazine Beach and Fresh Pond.
Since the jobs of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Solicitor are at stake, it would seem highly inappropriate that either participate in deliberations as advisors to the Cambridge City Council and, instead, be considered potential targets for personnel actions.
I did not witness the trial and the file on the case is not available. The file is on the desk of Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod who presided over the trial. I have reviewed the docket and have read the report in the Cambridge Chronicle.
The jury verdict was entered on May 23, 2008. The Cambridge Chronicle reports that the plaintiff was awarded more than $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. These actions were taken in response to a complaint by the plaintiff that she had been fired in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint against the City of Cambridge.
On May 29, 2008, Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. On June 12, 2008, post trial motions were filed including Cambridge’s motion to set aside the verdict or reduce the award. On June 19, a hearing was held on the motions. Cambridge has since, on July 3, filed “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions,” and, on July 15, filed “Defendant City of Cambridge’s MOTION to supplement record on appeal.”
Justice Catherine A. White presided over the original trial in which the jury was deadlocked on the issue of retaliation by Cambridge because the plaintiff filed the basic civil rights complaint.
Cambridge moved that Justice White find for the city on the issue of retaliation after the jury deadlocked. Justice White’s order in response, by electronic copy from the docket, is attached.
The relevant portion of Justice White’s order reads:
"Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable."
Justice White talks about a “number of incidents.”
It is unlikely that the evidence in the second trial was less favorable to the plaintiff. The jury verdict very clearly responds to what Justice White refers to as a “number of incidents.”
Cambridge is asking Justice MacLeod not only to reverse the jury verdict but also to reverse the order of Justice White.
Such a reversal by Justice MacLeod seems highly unlikely.
What is highly likely is that Justice MacLeod is spending a lot of time providing written documentation of the “number of incidents.”
The jury clearly considered the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager reprehensible. It is highly unlikely that the Cambridge City Manager accomplished this behavior without advice of the Cambridge City Solicitor.
Neither the Cambridge City Manager nor the Cambridge City Solicitor should participate as advisors in your consideration of whether to appeal or to take disciplinary action against the Cambridge City Manager plus perhaps against the Cambridge City Solicitor.
Thank you in advance for taking behavior appropriate for a City Council which states that it is pro-civil rights.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Attachment 1, Monteiro v. Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001- 02737, paper 81, June 2, 2005, electronic copy of docket entry. [Ed: In the letter, this is a direct electronic copy of the docket. The docket is in tabular format. The numbers are in cells on the left. The text is in cells on the right. The tabular format has been lost in copying to this blog. In my edits, I have tried to block off the text to make it read better. My blocking has also been lost. Another possible edit would be to drop the numbers on the left. I have chosen not to do that edit because of my opinion that that edit would not be true to what was transmitted.]
ORDER on Defendant's Motion for
Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005
I mailed the following letter yesterday to the Cambridge City Council:
July 25, 2008
City Council
City of Cambridge
c/o City Clerk
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
RE: Monteiro v. Cambridge
Middlesex County Civil Docket MICV2001-02737
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Soon, the Cambridge City Council will be faced with a decision as to whether the City should appeal the judgment in the Monteiro case or, as the jury would seem to consider appropriate, fire the Cambridge City Manager plus, perhaps, the Cambridge City Solicitor.
The very major penal damages awarded by the jury in addition to major actual damages indicate rather strong contempt by the jury for the behavior of the City of Cambridge in this matter.
Should the City of Cambridge choose to accept the jury decision, a good deal of money is readily available by killing the outrageous environmental projects at Magazine Beach and Fresh Pond.
Since the jobs of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Solicitor are at stake, it would seem highly inappropriate that either participate in deliberations as advisors to the Cambridge City Council and, instead, be considered potential targets for personnel actions.
I did not witness the trial and the file on the case is not available. The file is on the desk of Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod who presided over the trial. I have reviewed the docket and have read the report in the Cambridge Chronicle.
The jury verdict was entered on May 23, 2008. The Cambridge Chronicle reports that the plaintiff was awarded more than $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. These actions were taken in response to a complaint by the plaintiff that she had been fired in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint against the City of Cambridge.
On May 29, 2008, Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. On June 12, 2008, post trial motions were filed including Cambridge’s motion to set aside the verdict or reduce the award. On June 19, a hearing was held on the motions. Cambridge has since, on July 3, filed “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions,” and, on July 15, filed “Defendant City of Cambridge’s MOTION to supplement record on appeal.”
Justice Catherine A. White presided over the original trial in which the jury was deadlocked on the issue of retaliation by Cambridge because the plaintiff filed the basic civil rights complaint.
Cambridge moved that Justice White find for the city on the issue of retaliation after the jury deadlocked. Justice White’s order in response, by electronic copy from the docket, is attached.
The relevant portion of Justice White’s order reads:
"Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable."
Justice White talks about a “number of incidents.”
It is unlikely that the evidence in the second trial was less favorable to the plaintiff. The jury verdict very clearly responds to what Justice White refers to as a “number of incidents.”
Cambridge is asking Justice MacLeod not only to reverse the jury verdict but also to reverse the order of Justice White.
Such a reversal by Justice MacLeod seems highly unlikely.
What is highly likely is that Justice MacLeod is spending a lot of time providing written documentation of the “number of incidents.”
The jury clearly considered the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager reprehensible. It is highly unlikely that the Cambridge City Manager accomplished this behavior without advice of the Cambridge City Solicitor.
Neither the Cambridge City Manager nor the Cambridge City Solicitor should participate as advisors in your consideration of whether to appeal or to take disciplinary action against the Cambridge City Manager plus perhaps against the Cambridge City Solicitor.
Thank you in advance for taking behavior appropriate for a City Council which states that it is pro-civil rights.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Attachment 1, Monteiro v. Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001- 02737, paper 81, June 2, 2005, electronic copy of docket entry. [Ed: In the letter, this is a direct electronic copy of the docket. The docket is in tabular format. The numbers are in cells on the left. The text is in cells on the right. The tabular format has been lost in copying to this blog. In my edits, I have tried to block off the text to make it read better. My blocking has also been lost. Another possible edit would be to drop the numbers on the left. I have chosen not to do that edit because of my opinion that that edit would not be true to what was transmitted.]
ORDER on Defendant's Motion for
Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005
Friday, July 25, 2008
Further update
At the previous post's Item 4, Bob La Tremouille reports on behavior by the City Manager and his appointees. Marilyn Wellons reports here one incident involving the Deputy City Manager:
I've heard that aggrieved citizens had a meeting with Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi about an issue he apparently did not agree with them on. When the residents entered his office, Mr. Rossi was at his desk with his feet up, and his feet remained there during the meeting, blocking the residents' view of his face and his of theirs.
Showing the soles of your shoes like this is a well-known and serious insult in other parts of the world.
If confirmed, this is the first instance of it I've heard of here. I'm struck how even in our culture this behavior comes across as deeply insulting.
My husband's reaction to the report was that "the people of Cambridge seem to have bought themselves an official who has no fear of consequences for such acts."
The judgment against the City of Cambridge under the management of people like this may change that.
I've heard that aggrieved citizens had a meeting with Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi about an issue he apparently did not agree with them on. When the residents entered his office, Mr. Rossi was at his desk with his feet up, and his feet remained there during the meeting, blocking the residents' view of his face and his of theirs.
Showing the soles of your shoes like this is a well-known and serious insult in other parts of the world.
If confirmed, this is the first instance of it I've heard of here. I'm struck how even in our culture this behavior comes across as deeply insulting.
My husband's reaction to the report was that "the people of Cambridge seem to have bought themselves an official who has no fear of consequences for such acts."
The judgment against the City of Cambridge under the management of people like this may change that.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Update on jury’s more than $4.5 million civil rights award against the City of Cambridge.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Update.
2. Analysis of case.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
4. My experiences.
1. Update.
The jury decision against the City of Cambridge in Monteiro v. Cambridge continues to be on the judge’s desk.
The jury found that Cambridge had retaliated against a black woman for filing a civil rights action against Cambridge. She was the head of the Police Review Board until fired, according to the jury, in retaliation for filing the civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded slightly over $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.
The jury rendered its verdict on May 23, 2008. On May 29, the City of Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. The motions were filed on June 12, and a hearing conducted on June 19. On July 3, Cambridge filed something described as “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions.”
On July 15, which I became aware of on July 22 when checking the docket, Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.
Cambridge is trying to get the judge to say that the jury decision makes no sense and throw it out. In the alternative, Cambridge is trying to get the judge to reduce the award.
2. Analysis of case.
It truly is impossible to enter into a specific analysis of the case. I did not witness any part of the trial. I have not read the transcript. I can’t even read the papers because they are on the judge’s desk while she thinks the matter over.
The judge hearing the case is Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod.
A similar motion was heard by the trial judge in the first trial of the case. In that trial, the jury found against the plaintiff on her primary claim of civil rights abuses, but was unable to come to a verdict on the plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.
The docket in the trial indicates some instances in which the Court was asked to intervene on preliminary matters.
Service in the case was made on September 25, 2001. A joint pre-trial memorandum was filed on March 1, 2005. Trial was held on April 12, 2005, matter taken under advisement, Catherine A White Justice.
It is not clear from the docket, but my understanding is that the jury found against the plaintiff on the main civil rights complaint and was unable to come to a verdict on the retaliation complaint.
On June 2, 2005, Judge White denied the City of Cambridge’s motion to order a finding against the plaintiff on the retaliation claim.
There is a lot of similarity between what apparently faced Justice White in 2005 and what is now facing Justice MacLeod. The most important difference is that the 2005 jury could not come to a decision and the 2008 jury came to a decision with a vengeance.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
There have been United States Supreme Court decisions on penal damages. The jury’s award rather clearly seems to push the limit allowed. A recent very major maritime decision by the U.S. Supreme Court limited penal damages to the amount of actual damages.
Clearly, Justice MacLeod is thinking things over and forging a decision with an eye to ensuring that it will stand up on appeal.
Clearly, as well, once a jury has reached a decision, there is very strong bias to retaining the decision. There has to be very good reason to overturn a decision.
Justice White in 2005 found that she could not order a decision against the plaintiff on the retaliation issue after the jury deadlocked. The law is such that the situation has to be extremely clear to make such an order.
The way the law works, it is highly unlikely that Justice MacLeod will overturn the jury’s decision.
That leaves the issue of damages and penal damages. The first point is whether damages were accurately awarded. The second point is whether penal damages are appropriate or are excessive.
$1 million plus in real damages is what the jury found to be the actual monetary harm done.
Something caused the jury to award $3.5 million in penal damages. It is reasonable to assume that the jury was given reason to have very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.
To the extent that there was supporting testimony, the judge is probably trying to put that testimony together to determine if the $3.5 million in penal damages.
4. My experiences.
I can say very little about the Cambridge City Manager directly. I have been exposed to his organization in the community and to his representatives in the Development Department. The exposure leaves me with a very strong feeling that parallels the apparent feeling of the jury.
I have very strong concern for the behavior of the City of Cambridge on Environmental and Civil Rights matters. Judging the behavior of the City of Cambridge on the basis its own rhetoric, I see good reason to have contempt for the City of Cambridge.
Of the top of my head, I can remember one situation in which the Election Board flatly and simply refused to obey a clearly applicable case and threw out more than half the signatures on an election nomination petition. A strikingly bizarre “decision” from the City Solicitor blessed this outrageous action.
I can go on and on about outrageous behavior by the “neighborhood groups” and individuals which are aligned with the Cambridge City Manager. There have been repeated complaints about behavior of appointees of the Cambridge City Manager. His number two person, in particular, has earned a lot of concern, to use the nicest word conceivable.
The actions commonly can get quite personal.
My experience tells me that the judge probably has plenty in the record to justify the $3.5 million penal damage verdict.
We will see.
1. Update.
2. Analysis of case.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
4. My experiences.
1. Update.
The jury decision against the City of Cambridge in Monteiro v. Cambridge continues to be on the judge’s desk.
The jury found that Cambridge had retaliated against a black woman for filing a civil rights action against Cambridge. She was the head of the Police Review Board until fired, according to the jury, in retaliation for filing the civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded slightly over $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.
The jury rendered its verdict on May 23, 2008. On May 29, the City of Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. The motions were filed on June 12, and a hearing conducted on June 19. On July 3, Cambridge filed something described as “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions.”
On July 15, which I became aware of on July 22 when checking the docket, Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.
Cambridge is trying to get the judge to say that the jury decision makes no sense and throw it out. In the alternative, Cambridge is trying to get the judge to reduce the award.
2. Analysis of case.
It truly is impossible to enter into a specific analysis of the case. I did not witness any part of the trial. I have not read the transcript. I can’t even read the papers because they are on the judge’s desk while she thinks the matter over.
The judge hearing the case is Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod.
A similar motion was heard by the trial judge in the first trial of the case. In that trial, the jury found against the plaintiff on her primary claim of civil rights abuses, but was unable to come to a verdict on the plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.
The docket in the trial indicates some instances in which the Court was asked to intervene on preliminary matters.
Service in the case was made on September 25, 2001. A joint pre-trial memorandum was filed on March 1, 2005. Trial was held on April 12, 2005, matter taken under advisement, Catherine A White Justice.
It is not clear from the docket, but my understanding is that the jury found against the plaintiff on the main civil rights complaint and was unable to come to a verdict on the retaliation complaint.
On June 2, 2005, Judge White denied the City of Cambridge’s motion to order a finding against the plaintiff on the retaliation claim.
There is a lot of similarity between what apparently faced Justice White in 2005 and what is now facing Justice MacLeod. The most important difference is that the 2005 jury could not come to a decision and the 2008 jury came to a decision with a vengeance.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
There have been United States Supreme Court decisions on penal damages. The jury’s award rather clearly seems to push the limit allowed. A recent very major maritime decision by the U.S. Supreme Court limited penal damages to the amount of actual damages.
Clearly, Justice MacLeod is thinking things over and forging a decision with an eye to ensuring that it will stand up on appeal.
Clearly, as well, once a jury has reached a decision, there is very strong bias to retaining the decision. There has to be very good reason to overturn a decision.
Justice White in 2005 found that she could not order a decision against the plaintiff on the retaliation issue after the jury deadlocked. The law is such that the situation has to be extremely clear to make such an order.
The way the law works, it is highly unlikely that Justice MacLeod will overturn the jury’s decision.
That leaves the issue of damages and penal damages. The first point is whether damages were accurately awarded. The second point is whether penal damages are appropriate or are excessive.
$1 million plus in real damages is what the jury found to be the actual monetary harm done.
Something caused the jury to award $3.5 million in penal damages. It is reasonable to assume that the jury was given reason to have very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.
To the extent that there was supporting testimony, the judge is probably trying to put that testimony together to determine if the $3.5 million in penal damages.
4. My experiences.
I can say very little about the Cambridge City Manager directly. I have been exposed to his organization in the community and to his representatives in the Development Department. The exposure leaves me with a very strong feeling that parallels the apparent feeling of the jury.
I have very strong concern for the behavior of the City of Cambridge on Environmental and Civil Rights matters. Judging the behavior of the City of Cambridge on the basis its own rhetoric, I see good reason to have contempt for the City of Cambridge.
Of the top of my head, I can remember one situation in which the Election Board flatly and simply refused to obey a clearly applicable case and threw out more than half the signatures on an election nomination petition. A strikingly bizarre “decision” from the City Solicitor blessed this outrageous action.
I can go on and on about outrageous behavior by the “neighborhood groups” and individuals which are aligned with the Cambridge City Manager. There have been repeated complaints about behavior of appointees of the Cambridge City Manager. His number two person, in particular, has earned a lot of concern, to use the nicest word conceivable.
The actions commonly can get quite personal.
My experience tells me that the judge probably has plenty in the record to justify the $3.5 million penal damage verdict.
We will see.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Update on Environmental Destruction by DCR
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The state's Department of Conservation and Recreation has contempt for the environment with which it is charged.
This contempt is demonstrated by the horribly irresponsible large projects but also by season to season destruction of vegetation which has the nerve to look like nobody paid to put it in. They pay contractors to put in irresponsible nonsense. And they destroy valuable protective vegetation through agents as well.
The bizarre wall of green which blocks off the Charles from Magazine Beach is far more intrusive than the stuff they spend massive amounts of work destroying, but the stuff they destroy has not been planted by generous contributors.
As part of the destruction of protective native vegetation everywhere on the Charles, these people have been destroying ground vegetation at the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, piece by piece.
They started destroying ground vegetation toward the railroad tracks, then toward the Charles and then on the far side of the railroad tracks. Very little has returned. They have to be tossing on poisons as well.
The very visible parts of the nesting area have been spared the depravity of the DCR and its agents until this last off season.
We had deep brambles which held the soil together and which were used for nesting protection.
During the off season, contractors / the DCR had trucks in the nesting area preparing for the current projects. The trucks trampled vegetation. This spring, the DCR’s agents destroyed the vegetation which had been trampled.
If the vegetation had been let be, it would have healed itself, but the DCR’s agents found the situation offensive, so they dug up the crushed vegetation and exposed the dirt below.
We used to have a narrow path through the brambles from the corner of the BU Bridge and the Memorial Drive onramp. DCR’s sickos massively widened that path in the direction toward the BU Bridge. The damage created is unrepaired by nature. The destruction by the DCR’s agents is just dirt now.
The main brambles were untouched to the east of the path by the contractors’ trucks. The area away from the path, to the east, was damaged. The DCR’s sickos destroyed that vegetation.
Some vegetation has aggressively regrown, along the eastern edge of the brambles destroyed by the DCR’s sickos. The regrowth is quite limited and there is a lot of possible dirt where brambles have been dug up.
I walked the nesting area. I see a tiny amount of ground vegetation has returned under the trees toward the tracks.
In the last day or so, a very large tree has toppled next to the BU Bridge, not far from the Charles River. Its limbs are fully leaved, and it is lying on dirt / desolation created by the DCR’s sickos in past years.
The tree is still connected to the ground although toppled. It could very easily, I would think, survive and grow healthily.
This could be an improvement, but we are dealing with environmentally reprehensible people. Very certainly the DCR’s sickos will destroy the tree and destroy the ground on which it is lying, as they did with the brambles which were crushed during the off season.
We are dealing with really destructive people, environmentally reprehensible state and city governments.
The state's Department of Conservation and Recreation has contempt for the environment with which it is charged.
This contempt is demonstrated by the horribly irresponsible large projects but also by season to season destruction of vegetation which has the nerve to look like nobody paid to put it in. They pay contractors to put in irresponsible nonsense. And they destroy valuable protective vegetation through agents as well.
The bizarre wall of green which blocks off the Charles from Magazine Beach is far more intrusive than the stuff they spend massive amounts of work destroying, but the stuff they destroy has not been planted by generous contributors.
As part of the destruction of protective native vegetation everywhere on the Charles, these people have been destroying ground vegetation at the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, piece by piece.
They started destroying ground vegetation toward the railroad tracks, then toward the Charles and then on the far side of the railroad tracks. Very little has returned. They have to be tossing on poisons as well.
The very visible parts of the nesting area have been spared the depravity of the DCR and its agents until this last off season.
We had deep brambles which held the soil together and which were used for nesting protection.
During the off season, contractors / the DCR had trucks in the nesting area preparing for the current projects. The trucks trampled vegetation. This spring, the DCR’s agents destroyed the vegetation which had been trampled.
If the vegetation had been let be, it would have healed itself, but the DCR’s agents found the situation offensive, so they dug up the crushed vegetation and exposed the dirt below.
We used to have a narrow path through the brambles from the corner of the BU Bridge and the Memorial Drive onramp. DCR’s sickos massively widened that path in the direction toward the BU Bridge. The damage created is unrepaired by nature. The destruction by the DCR’s agents is just dirt now.
The main brambles were untouched to the east of the path by the contractors’ trucks. The area away from the path, to the east, was damaged. The DCR’s sickos destroyed that vegetation.
Some vegetation has aggressively regrown, along the eastern edge of the brambles destroyed by the DCR’s sickos. The regrowth is quite limited and there is a lot of possible dirt where brambles have been dug up.
I walked the nesting area. I see a tiny amount of ground vegetation has returned under the trees toward the tracks.
In the last day or so, a very large tree has toppled next to the BU Bridge, not far from the Charles River. Its limbs are fully leaved, and it is lying on dirt / desolation created by the DCR’s sickos in past years.
The tree is still connected to the ground although toppled. It could very easily, I would think, survive and grow healthily.
This could be an improvement, but we are dealing with environmentally reprehensible people. Very certainly the DCR’s sickos will destroy the tree and destroy the ground on which it is lying, as they did with the brambles which were crushed during the off season.
We are dealing with really destructive people, environmentally reprehensible state and city governments.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Ebersol Fields: Excellent Globe Article - Marilyn's Letter
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital is the state's precursor to the outrage in the process at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2008, the Boston Globe printed an excellent article on this magnificent and unused part of the Charles River.
Marilyn Wellons sent out the following letter to the editor to the Boston Globe in response early in the morning on July 10:
**********
re: "Build it and they may not come," July 9, 2008.
Commissioner Sullivan’s Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge are poised to repeat the errors of Ebersol Fields at Magazine Beach in Cambridge next month.
Restricted access to the playing fields there is imminent. At Cambridge’s expense, professional-level facilities will be constructed on state parkland now open to everyone. In return, Cambridge users will get privileged access. The DCR will advertise the project in two weeks for work to start in August.
A DCR official has stated that to maintain the “quality of turf our players deserve,” Ebersol Fields must get not only fertilizers but other chemicals, including a fungicide not to be applied near bodies of water. The agency has duly applied them. Runoff from these chemicals—organic or not—has fed astronomical algae blooms in the lower Charles since Ebersol Fields were installed in the spring of 2006. Now Cambridge and the DCR are bringing the algae to Magazine Beach. (For this we’ve spent $60 million to clean up the Charles?)
At Ebersol Fields, the donors’ good intentions and funds were diverted from the real needs of children in Boston neighborhoods to this blunder in the beautiful setting. The project at Magazine Beach repeats the error in Cambridge.
Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital is the state's precursor to the outrage in the process at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2008, the Boston Globe printed an excellent article on this magnificent and unused part of the Charles River.
Marilyn Wellons sent out the following letter to the editor to the Boston Globe in response early in the morning on July 10:
**********
re: "Build it and they may not come," July 9, 2008.
Commissioner Sullivan’s Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge are poised to repeat the errors of Ebersol Fields at Magazine Beach in Cambridge next month.
Restricted access to the playing fields there is imminent. At Cambridge’s expense, professional-level facilities will be constructed on state parkland now open to everyone. In return, Cambridge users will get privileged access. The DCR will advertise the project in two weeks for work to start in August.
A DCR official has stated that to maintain the “quality of turf our players deserve,” Ebersol Fields must get not only fertilizers but other chemicals, including a fungicide not to be applied near bodies of water. The agency has duly applied them. Runoff from these chemicals—organic or not—has fed astronomical algae blooms in the lower Charles since Ebersol Fields were installed in the spring of 2006. Now Cambridge and the DCR are bringing the algae to Magazine Beach. (For this we’ve spent $60 million to clean up the Charles?)
At Ebersol Fields, the donors’ good intentions and funds were diverted from the real needs of children in Boston neighborhoods to this blunder in the beautiful setting. The project at Magazine Beach repeats the error in Cambridge.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Update on Jury's $4.5 Million+ Civil Rights Award Against Cambridge
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have been keeping track of the Middlesex (MA) Superior Court case, Monteiro et al v. City of Cambridge. This is the case in which a jury has found the City of Cambridge, MA guilty of firing a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a discrimination complaint. The jury awarded over a million dollars in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.
Of major importance here is the extreme hyporcrisy of government in Cambridge, MA. If this jury verdict goes final, there is a possibility that the Cambridge City Council, as bad as it is, will have no choice but to fire the Cambridge City Manager for extreme misbehavior in office.
On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing on Cambridge's post trial motions to set aside or reduce the jury's verdict. These motions were filed on June 12, 2008 with regard to the jury verdict entered on May 19, 2008.
I checked on the matter this past Tuesday, July 8. No judge's decision has been filed.
On July 3, additional papers were filed under the name of "Defendant's Post Trial Submissions."
I have been keeping track of the Middlesex (MA) Superior Court case, Monteiro et al v. City of Cambridge. This is the case in which a jury has found the City of Cambridge, MA guilty of firing a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a discrimination complaint. The jury awarded over a million dollars in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.
Of major importance here is the extreme hyporcrisy of government in Cambridge, MA. If this jury verdict goes final, there is a possibility that the Cambridge City Council, as bad as it is, will have no choice but to fire the Cambridge City Manager for extreme misbehavior in office.
On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing on Cambridge's post trial motions to set aside or reduce the jury's verdict. These motions were filed on June 12, 2008 with regard to the jury verdict entered on May 19, 2008.
I checked on the matter this past Tuesday, July 8. No judge's decision has been filed.
On July 3, additional papers were filed under the name of "Defendant's Post Trial Submissions."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)