1. Chronicle Reports.
2. Letter of Praise.
Bob Reports:
1. Chronicle Reports.
In the April 30, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, the Chronicle had the Monteiro case as its lead headline.
The Chronicle wrote a very specific and quite good editorial on the matter.
The Chronicle editorial may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x303487854/Editorial-Gambling-with-our-money.
It leads with:
“Gambling with taxpayer money. That’s essentially what Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy has done in a case that has lasted 11 years, embarrassed City Hall and cost taxpayers a whopping $6 million, if you include the more than $1 million in legal fees.”
Another juicy comment:
“The image of an unelected public official proposing fee hikes while pursuing his own expensive personal legal battle that so far seems unconquerable doesn’t sit well with us.”
The latest, May 7, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, featured a guest editorial by an East Cambridge activist. It went into specific examples of outrageous behavior by the city.
This letter, by Mark Jaiquith, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x342382829/Guest-commentary-The-Bob-Healy-conundrum.
It leads with: “Has Cambridge had enough of Bob Healy?”
And comments later:
“It would be easier to deal with good old-fashioned graft, but we have something else, in my judgment no less corrupt. It’s a culture within government that what matters is the city’s bond rating, doing what He wants.”
2. Letter of Praise.
I sent the following letter on May 7, after reviewing the paper:
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
You are to be commended for your editorial and for the guest editorial on the Monteiro case.
I particularly appreciated the examples given in the guest editorial.
Cambridge has a dishonest government. Cambridge keeps the voters in control through intermediaries who do not identify themselves as intermediaries and who commonly use secret definitions and who use other improper techniques.
A government which does what was done to Ms. Monteiro is not "pro-civil rights." Seven continuing city councilors rehired the City Manager.
A government which tries to keep a handicapped elder from using her guide dog is not "pro-civil rights." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which routinely and needlessly destroys many healthy trees, but which runs around calling itself "pro-environment" is not "pro-environment." A city government which destroys green maintenance at Magazine Beach and walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is not "pro-environment." A city government which heartlessly abuses beautiful valuable animals is not "pro-environment." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which destroys zoning protections while claiming to be doing the opposite is not honest. All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
I can see unidentified representatives running around calling it "politically correct" to defend reprehensible government behavior.
I can see unidentified representatives running around repeating Cambridge’s civil rights nonsense, the civil rights nonsense which was discredited by the well thought out opinion of the Monteiro judge.
I can see unidentified representatives calling it AGAINST "political correctness" TO BE IN SUPPORT of the civil rights of this BLACK WOMAN.
"Political correctness" is other than what somebody’s handler calls "politically correct" this week, especially when the record in reality is so bad and so contrary to "political correctness."
Too many voters of Cambridge have too long been kept away from the reality that we have at least eight really bad city councilors who are responsible for the current really bad city government.
I can see too many voters being told by unidentified representatives that Cambridge has a decent government. I can see too many unidentified representatives running around who do not want to know that Cambridge’s government has been found reprehensible by verdict of judge and jury.
Your editorials are an excellent first step toward responsibility in Cambridge government.
We need to go beyond the first step. Cambridge needs a government which is not reprehensible.
