This is in the upper Charles. There is a recurring problem in the Charles River Basin which comes from the dumping of Tartan on Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Their favorite poisons were not working and they were not at all concerned about the warnings against use near water.
Has the Department of Conservation and Recreation been as irresponsible in the upper Charles as on the Charles River Basin?
They are all the same organization.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/12008230218660/algae-bloom-found-in-charles-river/
Friday, August 10, 2012
Cambridge’s Reaction to Monteiro: Wrong Civic Unity Committee?
1. Summary.
2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”
1. Summary.
On July 21, 2012, I posted a report entitled “Cambridge (MA) City Council plays games on Monteiro?” at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/cambridge-ma-city-council-plays-games.html.
Monteiro v. Cambridge is an excellent example of the corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA.
Penn State gets court decisions demonstrating outrageous sexual abuses by a key person which have been hidden by higher key people and heads role plus a whole bunch of football victories are vacated.
Cambridge got very major court decisions which object to the Cambridge City Manager’s destruction of the life of a female department head because she filed a women’s rights / civil rights complaint. The trial judge called the behavior “reprehensible”. The jury awarded penal damages possibly greater than allowed by law to show its disgust. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion, perhaps to allow the massive penal damages award without making those massive damages formal precedent. The Appeals Court referred to “ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior.”
This combination of judicial actions put the Cambridge City Council in position that it is able fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.
What is the Cambridge City Council’s reaction?
Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council support firing the Cambridge City Manager.
A motion to express displeasure at the situation was submitted by four of the nine members. Five of the nine members (including two sponsors) voted to refer the motion to the Civic Unity Committee.
2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”
I did not want to dignify the referral any more than I could help, so I provided a generic type of description of the committee without stating its name.
The City of Cambridge has had a Civic Unity Committee in existence since the 80's appointed by the Cambridge City Manager. This committee is devoted to civil rights issues.
Very late in the Monteiro process, two FORMER members of Cambridge’s Civic Unity Committee published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle stating that the committee had tried to get information on the case and was chastised for their initiative by the Cambridge City Solicitor.
It would appear that the Cambridge City Council at some time in recent years has created its own Civic Unity Committee, and that that was the committee to which this totally inadequate motion was referred, not the well established committee appointed by the City Manager.
My thanks to the submitter of this information.
It would thus appear that the action of the Cambridge City Council could possibly be considered even more useless than I realized.
2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”
1. Summary.
On July 21, 2012, I posted a report entitled “Cambridge (MA) City Council plays games on Monteiro?” at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/cambridge-ma-city-council-plays-games.html.
Monteiro v. Cambridge is an excellent example of the corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA.
Penn State gets court decisions demonstrating outrageous sexual abuses by a key person which have been hidden by higher key people and heads role plus a whole bunch of football victories are vacated.
Cambridge got very major court decisions which object to the Cambridge City Manager’s destruction of the life of a female department head because she filed a women’s rights / civil rights complaint. The trial judge called the behavior “reprehensible”. The jury awarded penal damages possibly greater than allowed by law to show its disgust. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion, perhaps to allow the massive penal damages award without making those massive damages formal precedent. The Appeals Court referred to “ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior.”
This combination of judicial actions put the Cambridge City Council in position that it is able fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.
What is the Cambridge City Council’s reaction?
Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council support firing the Cambridge City Manager.
A motion to express displeasure at the situation was submitted by four of the nine members. Five of the nine members (including two sponsors) voted to refer the motion to the Civic Unity Committee.
2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”
I did not want to dignify the referral any more than I could help, so I provided a generic type of description of the committee without stating its name.
The City of Cambridge has had a Civic Unity Committee in existence since the 80's appointed by the Cambridge City Manager. This committee is devoted to civil rights issues.
Very late in the Monteiro process, two FORMER members of Cambridge’s Civic Unity Committee published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle stating that the committee had tried to get information on the case and was chastised for their initiative by the Cambridge City Solicitor.
It would appear that the Cambridge City Council at some time in recent years has created its own Civic Unity Committee, and that that was the committee to which this totally inadequate motion was referred, not the well established committee appointed by the City Manager.
My thanks to the submitter of this information.
It would thus appear that the action of the Cambridge City Council could possibly be considered even more useless than I realized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)