I have just read the Cambridge Chronicle’s on line report, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x488549132/Cambridge-city-manager-becomes-an-issue-at-candidate-debate#axzz1XC8mzarb concerning the candidates night last Wednesday, August 31, 2011. I have commented on the Cambridge Day report of this event at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/cambridge-day-city-manager-is-key-issue.html.
There is a key difference in the approach of the two reports from my perspective. Cambridge Day’s report was marked preliminary, and Cambridge Day does a very good job getting things out fast. The difference between the reports can come from editing for space, and really most people would not be reading the report with the legal eye I am applying to it. You simply cannot expect legal perfection in a news report.
The Cambridge Chronicle’s report did provide the exact wording of the question being answered: “Lesley Phillips, chair of the Ward 6 Committee, . . said Healy’s performance, compensation and tenure has recently become a subject of attention. She asked the candidates, if they were to be elected, what would be their position on any potential extension of Healy’s contract.”
So the failure to talk to whether or not Healy should be fired for malfeasance in office was really not in front of the candidates.
I would very strongly suggest, however, a responsible candidate talking on this subject really should note that Healy’s malfeasance in office AS DETERMINED BY COURT WITH APPEAL makes him ripe for firing under very severe conditions. But then again, this is Cambridge, MA, USA. Reality is commonly irrelevant in political discussions.
