Cambridge, MA Lt. Governor Candidate: Record on civil / human rights, heartless human abuse.
This report is the third in a series. Preceding reports may be viewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-why-pick.html (#2) and http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/cambridge-ma-city-council-considers.html (#1).
When you are dealing with reality in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, “They would never stoop so low” can be a very serious and wrong statement to make with regard to Cambridge pols.
Lt. Governor Candidate / City Councilor Cheung and the rest of the Cambridge City Council who were in office in 2011 have a very clear record on civil / women’s / human rights and on heartless human abuse.
This is in addition to heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction. And it fits a very distressing pattern.
The name of the key matter on civil / women’s / human rights and on heartless human abuse is Monteiro v. Cambridge.
This case is one of those rare instances in which a politician has had a very real chance to show where that politician is coming from on a major issue. Cheung severely failed the test along with the rest of the Cambridge City Council serving with him.
The Trial Court Decision and Order came down on April 24, 2009. It is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html
The Appeals Court Panel communication came down on August 15, 2011. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal by calling their writing a decision. Whatever name may be applied to this communication, this communication is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html
Councilor Cheung was elected on November 13, 2009, and took office at the beginning of January 2010.
The 2011 election saw Councilor Seidel almost certainly fired because of the Monteiro outrage. The 2013 election probably saw Councilor Reeves fired over the Monteiro outrage.
Malvina Monteiro was the head of the Police Review Board for the City of Cambridge. She filed a civil rights complaint alleging she was being improperly treated in her job because she is a woman.
The Cambridge City Manager fired her in retaliation for her filing that complaint.
This is not a matter which may properly be described as “alleged.” This is a matter which has been proven in Court and has been affirmed at the Appeals Court level..
The jury spoke very clearly. They gave Malvina Monteiro $1.1 million in real damages.
The jury listened to the testimony of Cambridge City Manager. Robert Healy. Robert Healy explained his heartless destruction of that woman’s life. The jury gave their opinion of Robert Healy’s behavior.
The jury awarded penal damages in excess of three times the real damages, $3.5 million.
Monteiro received a check for $8,300.000. Expenditures on the Monteiro case including Outside Counsel ran $10,932.409.00. Expenditures including five related cases ran $14,569,558.
Give me a ring at email@example.com, and I will be pleased to give these citations.
I have given you a link to the Trial Judge’s opinion. The Trial Judge went into detail with regard to the Robert Healy testimony. The Trial Judge’s opinion of Robert Healy’s actions can be summed up in one word: “Reprehensible.”
I have given you a link to the Appeals Court panel’s opinion which they called not an opinion.
The Appeals Court panel clearly stated their contempt for Cambridge’s appeal by refusing to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion.
A good summary of the Appeals Court panel’s decision / non decision is. “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
The batch of court actions gave the Cambridge City Council a highly unusual power.
The Cambridge City Council was placed in a position to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office based on this batch of decisions.
The Cambridge City Council was empowered to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office with no meaningful opportunity of the Cambridge City Manager to challenge his firing for malfeasance in office in court. The issue of his malfeasance in office was clearly and emphatically decided already.
All of the Cambridge City Manager’s lovely protections in his contract were out the window.
The only real question after the judicial actions was whether Robert Healy could be stripped of his pension, and there is a very good likelihood he could have been stripped of his pension, if the Cambridge City Council were a responsible entity.
The City Solicitor retired in January 2012. The Cambridge City Manager retired with honor in June / July2013.
Cheung was part of this City Council which saw nothing wrong with the behavior of Robert Healy.
Cheung was part of this City Council which saw nothing wrong with Robert Healy destroying this woman’s life because she stood up to him and because she took actions protected by civil rights law.
Cheung was part of this City Council which simply ignored strong, unequivocal messages from judge, jury, and Appeals Court panel.
There were exactly zero attempts to fire Robert Healy. There were exactly zero motions to fire Robert Healy. There were exactly zero votes to fire Robert Healy.
Cheung was one of the City Councilors who saw no evil in spite of very strong statements from jury, judge and Appeals Court panel.
This is Cheung’s record on women’s rights / civil rights / heartless human abuse.
Is this the kind of person who should be sitting a heartbeat away from running the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
Is this the kind of person who should replace the governor if the governor decides to move on? The Governor moving on has been a surprisingly common action in recent decades.
In no way should this analysis be interpreted as saying there is something about Leland Cheung which makes him worse than other City Councilors who have served as long as he has. That is the problem. You would have to really look to say that he is worse than any of his fellows..
On environmental, heartless animal abuse, civil rights / women’s rights and heartless human abuse issues, there is almost no difference among the Cambridge City Council incumbents who have served as long as or longer than Cheung, except that the longer serving City Councilors have had more chance to do bad.
In Cambridge, Cheung and the rest of the pols have a massive organization running around lying that Cambridge has a responsible City Council.
Cheung is not in Cambridge now.