1. General.
2. Tom Stohlman.
3. Sam Seidel.
1. General.
The situation in Cambridge, MA, USA is outrageous. Environmental destruction by government on the Charles River is bizarre and getting worse. The city and its friends in the state are preparing to destroy the last virgin forest, the core Alewife reservation, for flood storage that belongs under a massive parking lot across the street.
Informed analyses by non-insiders have a tendency to communicate shock.
Judge, jury and appeals court panel have evaluated Cambridge’s treatment of a black, Cape Verdean department head with extreme displeasure. They have found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury spoke with $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.
The judge reaffirmed the jury in an opinion which quoted the Cambridge City Manager’s testimony extensively. She called him “reprehensible.”
The appeals court panel reacted to Cambridge’s appeal with disgust, refusing to honor the appeal with a full fledged opinion. They commented that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.
The cost of the case to Cambridge now seems to be approaching $8 million.
The Cambridge Chronicle’s editorial, posted on August 18, 2011, at : http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk, seems to go both ways on whether the City Manager should leave.
My personal opinion is that the binding judicial decision seems to indicate that the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without his golden parachute and probably without pension. The latter would be an extension of existing law, but the case is ideal to extend the law. I think the courts have reached an excellent opinion.
The election season is here.
The Cambridge Chronicle is asking candidates: “Do you think it is time for a new City Manger?"
I will be reporting on the answers with links to the complete comments.
2. Tom Stohlman.
Stohlman was quoted in the September 1, 2011 edition. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1038224447/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates#axzz1WqAyIFpn.
Mr. Stohlman makes no comment on Monteiro, on the $8 million cost, or on the judicial findings and orders.
A brief summary of his answer is: Yes. Yes. "Let's get to it, and hope we can do as good a job as the Cambridge City Council did in 1981."
3. Sam Seidel.
Seidel was quoted in the September 1, 2011 edition. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x488547915/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates#axzz1WqAyIFpn.
Seidel is an incumbent. He was apparently uninterested when another member of the Council attempted to get the Council to obtain independent opinion on whether an appeal should be conducted in Monteiro. Seidel has a terrible environmental record where it is meaningful. He calls himself an environmentalist.
His answer to the question is negative. "Over a long career, the City Manager has led Cambridge effectively through many challenges while improving the overall performance of city government and I do not seek to replace him in the next two years."
His comments rather clearly communicate that the Monteiro decision does not exist.
