Sunday, January 25, 2015

Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA Civil Rights, clarification on Committee Name: Letter from Cambridge’s Human Rights Committee.

Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA Civil Rights, clarification on Committee Name: Letter from Cambridge’s Human Rights Committee.

1. Introduction.
2. What is an environment blog doing analyzing civil rights?
3. Letter on Monteiro.

1. Introduction.

In my last report, I reported a Black Lesbian Cambridge City Councilor stating in a meeting of the fake neighborhood association that a Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager has never existed.  The purpose of such committees in Cambridge, MA, USA is to discuss “diversity” issues.

This was a follow up on the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge in which a series of court decisions damned the now retired City Manager for destroying the life of Malvina Montero because she filed a civil rights complaint.

My report is posted at

I mentioned a very prominent Black leader whom I did not name who was involved in the City Manager Civic Unity Committee.  He was named Oliver Farnum.  He passed away awhile ago.

In the third section of this report, I reprint the letter in the Cambridge Chronicle that I was thinking came from former members of the City Manager’s Civic Unity Committee.  It turns out the name of the committee whose former members sent the letter is the Human Rights Commission.  That sounds like a sensible renaming of what was an abstrusely named committee.

Clearly, the name has been changed or some sort of other reorganization has occurred.  That change possibly occurred during the past ten years or so, because I was constantly getting confused about having two Civic Unity Committees, the City Council’s and the City Manager’s.  And, in fact, it came to be a great surprise to me that the City Council had a committee by that name.

Going through recent reports, I note that the City Council committee has exposed further outrages from the former City Manager.  I would be very surprised if anybody associated with the City of Cambridge has commented on the City Council’s failure to fire a City Manager so roundly condemned by the Courts.

2. What is an environment blog doing analyzing civil rights?

The problem on the Charles River in Boston / Cambridge, MA, USA rests squarely on the government of the City of Cambridge.

The great weakness in the destroyers in the City of Cambridge is that the residents of the City of Cambridge demand a progressive government.  The government of the City of Cambridge, on the important stuff, is exactly the opposite of progressive.  So they lie using all sorts of techniques.

The two points most touchy with the electorate are the environment and civil rights, both issues on which Cambridge is demonstrably vile.  The two are a package in Cambridge, MA, USA.  The concern of this blog is the environment.  The vileness of the City of Cambridge on Civil Rights supports the position that Cambridge has a very bad government.  They satisfy the electorate by lying about their records through a whole bunch of tactics.  They are not the saints their propaganda puts them out to be.

It is all one vile package.  The combination of vileness on environmental and civil rights matters renders a situation where members of the city council are not fit for office, as far as a knowing electorate would be concerned.  So the lies and the fake groups and the massive, lying organization.

It is a mistake to say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its Cambridge City Council.

To beat them, hit them with reality.  Reality is that last thing the Cambridge City Government / City Council wants discussed.  The electorate might actually realize they are getting massive lies about “saints” who are anything but saints.

To put it succinctly, the record of the City of Cambridge on civil rights is Monteiro, Monteiro, Monteiro.  The inability of all nine then sitting City Councilors to even consider firing a City Manager whose behavior was indisputably condemned through multiple sources in the Courts condemns all the then sitting City Councilors.

3. Letter on Monteiro.

This Cambridge Chronicle letter is taken from my files, and it is not edited.  The “editor’s note” is from the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.


Published on line October 17, 2011.  In Cambridge Chronicle hard copy October 20, 2011.

Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start

Cambridge —

[Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Cambridge City Council last week by former Cambridge Human Rights Commissioners. Since that time, the remaining cases mentioned in the letter have been settled by the city.]

As sitting commissioners on the Human Rights Commission at the time of the Monteiro versus city of Cambridge trials, we write to strongly urge you to initiate a discussion on the issues of accountability about this specific case and more generally in regard to who is responsible for upholding human rights in the city.

The concern for employees who allege discrimination should be on the city’s agenda, as now a jury, a Superior Court judge and the Appellate Court have vindicated a former employee who charged retaliation for having filed a discrimination suit.

Having found out about the first trial in the case from the local media, human rights commissioners in 2005 considered what our obligations in the case might be given the city ordinance that established the commission, which reads as follows.

· “The commission shall discuss human rights problem areas with the city manager and make recommendations necessary to protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).

· “The commission shall request of the city manager, department heads and superintendent of schools, such information and staff support as is reasonable so that it may be properly informed” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).

· The commission may review and comment on all matters pertaining to the human rights of citizens (Section 2.76.080, page 89).

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 and “protect… the human rights of all city… employees.” Furthermore, our attempt to be “properly informed,” we were told, carried the threat of a conflict of interest.

As a second plaintiff’s charge of discrimination awaits a trial date, we call upon you as our elected officials to be involved in developing a process to deal with alleged discrimination charges that offer city employees other options besides bringing costly lawsuits. The city administration’s placement of limitations on the work of the Human Rights Commission is part of the problem in ruling out such options. It is time for the city council to renew its commitment to “protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” and to urge and support the Human Rights Commission in doing what it was established to do. --William Donovan, Marla Erlien, Charles Kavanaugh, Daniel Klubock, Susan Ostrander

Read more: Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle