1. Their comments.
2. Source on line.
3. Comment.
4. Other links.
5. Addendum, added two hours after posting.
1. Their comments.
Former Cambridge, MA, USA Human Rights Commission commissioners commented in a letter to the Cambridge City Council that the then members of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission first learned of the Monteiro case in the media. Apparently, the human rights commission, in accordance with its charge, requested information on the case.
“Our attempt in 2005 to acquire general information about city employee complaints of discrimination, to receive a copy of the Monteiro complaint and to request the city law department to meet with us simply to provide us with the information, which the ordinance clearly mandates that we should have, was met with hostility. We were accused by the law department with interfering, told that our inquiry was out of line and informed that as a city-appointed body our interest and concern should be with city officials, when our mandate is to be concerned with ant ‘protect . . . the human rights of all city . . . employees.’ Further our attempt to be ‘properly informed,’ we were told, carried the threat of a conflict of interest.”
2. Source on line.
We learned of this letter from the Cambridge Chronicle which published it on pages 10 and 11 of the October 20, 2011 edition. It appeared as the second letter of the issue. Almost all of the letter was printed in letters to the right of the editorial. The first letter was a letter from a city council candidate calling for disclosure of closed session information concerning the Monteiro Case.
The Chronicle’s complete publication of the letter is on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x984138967/Letter-No-information-on-Monteiro-case-from-the-start#axzz1bb63kGDe.
According to the Chronicle, the letter was sent by the former commissioners “last week”.
I searched the records of last Monday’s meeting and did not find the letter. The next prior meeting, two weeks earlier, did not include it either.
If I had been able to find the letter, I would have published it in total. This partial publication is made out of respect for the Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Comment.
The response attributed to the Cambridge City Solicitor is very much consistent with the mentality of various fake "protective" groups in Cambridge. The supposedly independent groups are clearly more free than appointed entities. Nevertheless, this mentality is the rather obvious reason why many groups are fake.
Writing this letter took a lot of guts.
4. Other links.
The superior court decision on Monteiro may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
The appeals court comments on Monteiro may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
A partial summary of Department of Conservation and Recreation outrages may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/charles-river-connectivity-bizarre.html.
All environmental outrages in Cambridge are coordinated by the DCR with Cambridge. There are many environmental outrages by Cambridge on its own.
It all has the same stench.
5. Addendum, added two hours after posting.
Addendum: I have searched the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting without finding the letter. I have also checked reports on communications from city officers both for tomorrow’s and last Monday’s meeting without success.
