1. Committee meets concerning Monteiro v. Cambridge.
2. The case.
3. The message of judge, jury and appeals court.
4. The response of the Cambridge City Council.
5. Missing complainants.
6. Confusion?
1. Committee meets concerning Monteiro v. Cambridge.
Cambridge Day has posted a report on Civic Unity Committee meeting concerning discrimination in Cambridge Government. There are two essentially identically named committees and the reporters never distinguish which is the one they are talking about. This sounds like the City Council committee. It is posted at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2013/09/25/city-manager-promises-the-fearful-no-retaliation-for-discrimination-complaints/.
2. The case.
Monteiro v. City of Cambridge concerned a women’s rights complaint filed by the head of the city’s Police Review Board. She is a black Cape Verdean female. After filing the complaint, she was fired.
She lost the underlying complaint but won overwhelmingly on an added complaint that her firing was retaliation. The jury awarded about $1.1 million underlying damages and $3.5 million penal damages. The penal damages were more than three times the basic award. Clearly the jury was sending a message to the City of Cambridge that the City Manager’s firing of this woman and destroying her life in retaliation was very much unacceptable.
The judge wrote an excellent opinion which has routinely been summarized in one word, “Reprehensible.”
Cambridge appealed. The Appeals Court panel treated the appeal with disgust. It refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion, writing of “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
3. The message of judge, jury and appeals court.
Nothing complicated about these communications, extreme malfeasance in office.
City Manager Robert Healy had judge, jury and appeals court telling the City Council of the City of Cambridge that they should fire City Manager Robert Healy for malfeasance in office by his retaliatory firing of Malvina Monteiro for filing that civil rights complaint.
The decision undisputedly supported his firing. The only real question raised was whether he should be fired without pension.
4. The response of the Cambridge City Council.
The poor dears sat on their hands. Exactly zero city councilors meaningfully attempted to implement the clear directives of judge, jury and appeals court. Exactly zero city councilors meaningfully attempted to fire Robert Healy.
The city council funded the appeals process. One columnist for the Boston Globe called the appeal beyond the bounds of reason.
At one point way after all the negative comments, some city councilors filed a motion to chastize Robert Healy. Some Councilors who filed the motion to chastize proceeded to move to put the motion on the table.
5. Missing complainants.
There are more such complaints being heard and people present for the hearing mentioned those complaints.
Robert Healy has honorably retired. His replacement insists he would not mistreat any complainant.
But no complainants showed up.
6. Confusion?
The poor dears could not understand why no complainants showed up.
The poor dears sound so holier than thou.
The poor dears cannot understand why people complaining of discrimination would not do so publicly.
But then again, judge, jury and appeals court gave the Cambridge City Council ample grounds, a final court decision giving them grounds to fire Healy for malfeasance in office.
And exactly zero city councilors attempted to fire Robert Healy.
But they are putting on yet more pious shows telling folks how holy they are.
And they have a massive machine telling people how holy they are.
And they cannot understand why complainants are not showing up.
They cannot possibly be so stupid.
