Little Brook Visits, Machine pontificates, plans more harm Wednesday night???

1. Little Brook’s Visit, Feeding Record, State Meeting.
A. Introductory.
B. Little Brook visits.
C. Follow ups to Little Brook.
D. State response.
2. Machine Pontificates.
A. The Fault of the Voters.
B. Too Late.
(1) Pending destruction of hundreds of healthy trees which has not occurred yet.
(2) Toss on responsible grass seed instead of poisons.
(3) Treat the introduced wall of bushes like all other vegetation bounding the Charles River.
(4) Fill in the poison drainage system.
(5) Kill the proposed restrictions on use.
3. Machine to do more harm Wednesday night?

Bob La Trémouille reports with significant writing by Marilyn Wellons.

1. Little Brook’s Visit, Feeding Record, State Meeting.

A. Introductory.

A few weeks ago, Friends of the White Geese met with the manager of the BU Bridge repairs at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

We invited a number of people who have been involved with and concerned for the Charles River White Geese.















B. Little Brook visits.

The most beloved participant was Native American Reen LittleBrook.

Little Brook was the best friend of the Charles River White Geese from about 1996 to summer 2004.

In summer 2004, Little Brook got a bicycle. The next day, he wound up in a very severe collision. He is very lucky to be alive. After major rehabilitation, he still feels the effects of the collision.

During those eight years, Little Brook gathered bread and other food from many good people and got it to the geese.

Little Brook cared for their injuries and infirmities using his knowledge of practical medicines and animal care.

Two photos of his visit are included in this report. One photo of the view of the construction from where he was feeding is also attached.















C. Follow ups to Little Brook.

That summer Marilyn Wellons and others took over, as much as they could, Little Brook’s responsibilities.

Then on September 24, 2004, Cambridge and the state heartlessly began to starve the Charles River White Geese. Just when the geese were at Magazine Beach, their primary feeding grounds, from dawn to dusk to get ready for winter, the City of Cambridge and the DCR began a project to keep the geese permanently from the grass there. First the construction barriers went up. The geese were frantic when they discovered they couldn't get ashore.















All their food was taken away from them. The construction barriers remained for years. Since they came down the permanent barrier of plants has kept the White Geese from Magazine Beach.

This heartlessness drove home to us just how minimal the feeding we had been giving to the Charles River White Geese was compared to the bulk of their diet, grass along the riverfront.

Marilyn did some research and determined a proper diet. She went to farm supply stores and found the needed greens and other food, and bought it.

Friends of the White Geese worked to create a separate organization, the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. That organization feeds the geese and has allowed people to contribute with tax benefits.

A number of local merchants have been kind enough to provide expired food which can no longer be sold to humans. The Charles River White Geese and the other waterfowl are not so fussy they love it.

The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, Inc. has done a heroic job, faithfully keeping the Charles River White Geese alive. The destructive project at Magazine Beach feeds planners and contractors even as it has starved the geese.

D. State response.

This exchange was several weeks ago. I have not publicly mentioned it in this forum because I appreciate the courtesy of the visit in spite of its lack of accomplishment.

I gave the gentleman a list of needs. He pretty much responded that the problems were created by the DCR and he was not able to do much.





















2. Machine Pontificates.

We frequently do visibilities at many events to communicate to decent people the lies routinely tossed out by the Cambridge Machine.

At one of these events, a very good worker spoke with Craig Kelley.

Kelley is a Cambridge City Councilor. He has run as an environmentalist. Kelley has a strikingly bad record on the real environmental issues. He brags about fancy light bulbs and somehow just cannot notice the repeated destruction of the REAL environment being done on his watch.

Kelley gave two basic explanations for the outrage on the Charles River. First, it is the fault of the voters. Secondly, it is too late.

A. The Fault of the Voters.

The voters are at fault, through Kelley’s reasoning, because the voters did not keep Kelley and his friends from doing the outrageous destruction which they have accomplished. This “environmental activist” expects the voters to keep him from destroying the environment and expects the voters to force him to stop environmental destruction.

B. Too Late.

(1) Pending destruction of hundreds of healthy trees which has not occurred yet.

Apparently, as far as Kelley is concerned, the promised destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge cannot be prevented because it is too late. Last time I checked, those trees were still there. Kelley says it is too late to prevent their destruction.

(2) Toss on responsible grass seed instead of poisons.

Apparently, as far as Kelley is concerned, the destruction of the GREEN maintained grass at Magazine Beach and the introduction of sickly stuff which requires poisons to stay alive is also a fait accompli.

Strange. It does not strike me at all difficult to simply stop tossing on poisons and toss on responsible grass seed instead. Somehow, it is too late to behave in a responsible manner once grossly irresponsible behavior has been inflicted.

I find that incredible. Replacement of the introduced sickly grass in that manner would likely save money.

(3) Treat the introduced wall of bushes like all other vegetation bounding the Charles River.

The contractor welfare at Magazine Beach has been severely delayed because, after they destroyed healthy native vegetation, the introduced stuff would not live. The stuff they destroyed has routinely been destroyed on the Boston side by the state and Boston has severely criticized the state for it. Boston is concerned about migrating waterfowl and about the native vegetation. Cambridge simply destroys and brags about fancy buildings.

This introduced stuff which was not fit to live on the Charles finally took hold and has not been cut since. The state’s project manager has bragged that it starves the Charles River White Geese. It seems to have no other purpose.

While this introduced stuff is growing unchecked and starving the native animal population, the state twice a year destroys all the protective vegetation abutting the Charles.

Apparently, according to Councilor Kelley it is impossible to treat introduced vegetation in the same manner as the native protective vegetation. Councilor Kelley has not explained why it is impossible to chop down this starvation wall just like the useful stuff.

And this starvation wall is extremely harmful to the native animal population.

But Councilor Kelley brags of his fancy light bulbs.

(4) Fill in the poison drainage system.

Cambridge has spent a bunch of money creating a drainage pit system to drain off the poisons that they should not be dumping on the banks of the Charles. The drainage pits cannot possibly handle the worst of the storms.

We have proposed the responsible way to handle the poisons above. This removes the need for the poison drainage system. Even more threatening, continued presence of the poison drainage system would indicate intention to resume poisoning.

Encouragingly, the Cambridge City Council claims to be in support of open space. Returning these pits to open space use is an obvious correction for a poison drainage system which is unnecessary if you do not dump poisons.

Presumably, Mr. Kelley believes me when I call the bunch of them liars.

(5) Kill the proposed restrictions on use.

Cambridge proposes to prohibit the public from using this area which has been in public use for the better part of a century. If you even want to toss a frisbee, you have to register in advance and pay $90.

EVEN IF THE FIELD IS NOT BEING USED.

Restrictions like this have been enforced by the police at Russell Field near Alewife Station.

There is a sister facility further down the river near Massachusetts General Hospital. The state needed approvals from the Boston Conservation Commission. I told the Boston Con Comm about the plans for Magazine Beach. The Boston Conservation Commission ordered signs posted allowing public use when not scheduled.

Solution: behave responsibly.

Obviously Mr. Kelley agrees with my opinion as to the extreme irresponsibility of the Cambridge City Government.

It is too late according to Mr. Kelley. Cambridge cannot possibly behave as a decent city government like the City of Boston. THAT IS THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE IN CAMBRIDGE.

That position strikes me as irresponsible.

3. Machine to do more harm Wednesday night?

There is a group with connections to the Cambridge City Manager which claims to be a neighborhood association.

It is meeting Wednesday evening, February 23, at 7 pm for an annual meeting with a discussion of “improvements” for the Charles River coming at 7:30 pm or 8 pm.

The leader of this organization was present at a meeting of City Manager appointees a few weeks ago to discuss the introduced vegetation which seems to have no use except starving the animals. The groups enforced a three minute talking limit on people concerned about the environment. He spent what seemed like ten minutes patting his organization on the back. He never did discuss the introduced vegetation.

This meeting will be conducted in the basement of Woodrow Wilson Court, a housing project on Magazine Street in Cambridge southwest of Dana Park. The entrance used is on Fairmont Street.

Councilor Kelley has been communicating on this matter and employees of the Cambridge City Manager will be there.

It is quite certain that these self-proclaimed defenders of the environment will continue to not understand why destroying the environment and heartless animal abuse is not nice.

Response to Walz and Davis Meetings Nonsense

The following letter was published in the February 18, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle:

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

Councilor Davis and Rep Walz have objected that the state’s meetings about the River Street and Western Avenue bridge repairs were held in Boston only, none in Cambridge.
In 2008, the state conducted three meetings about BU Bridge repairs on the BU campus and in Kendall Square. Those locations served to hide the accelerating, needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse in Cambridge from Cambridge residents. Now, at the River and Western bridges, the state does not have the same filthy hands.

In 2008 we objected to the state’s destructiveness and to their bad faith meetings. Davis and Walz were silent, "neutral" on both counts.
Why have they reversed themselves?

Silence is consent. Their failure to press for meetings in Cambridge indicated their approval of the animal abuse and destruction of the environment. This year they speak up to give the impression they care about the environment.

We suggest they begin to show real concern for the Charles River.

They can object to the poisons imported to Magazine Beach in commercial sod in 2008-09 and now required to keep the sickly grass there (including the seeded portions) alive. They can speak up for reseeding with the grasses and other plants that thrived there, untreated, for the better part of a century.

They can object to the DCR’s destruction of native plants along the Charles that protect migrating waterfowl. When the state destroyed those plants on the Boston side, the Boston Conservation Commission objected, but they were silent.

They’ve said human access to every foot of the riverfront is “sacred,” but they don’t object that the DCR has built a wall of plants that blocks access for thousands of feet, or that the DCR refuses to chop down only this portion of the riverfront for viewing the Head of the Charles. They’re silent on the inconsistency and on the DCR’s acknowledged reason for it: it keeps the Charles River White Geese from feeding there.

They should push the DCR to reverse this starvation policy and let the beautiful 30 year native Charles River White Geese return to their primary feeding grounds at Magazine Beach, rather than confining them to the devastated ghetto the DCR has created of their nesting area by the BU Bridge.

And why have these elected officials been silent on the DCR’s plans to destroy hundreds of trees and animal habitat along Memorial Drive? Silence is consent.

Robert J. La Trémouille and Marilyn Wellons
Co-CEO’s, Friends of the White Geese
651 Green Street

Environmental Affairs response?

Archie Mazmanian reports as of February 11, paragraphing added:

MassDOT Secretary Mullan wrote to EOEEA on January 22, 2010, concerning its intentions for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring project. As yet, no response from EOEEA has been posted at the Urban Ring website.

Is this because EOEEA has not responded? Usually EOEEA responds quickly to letters from MassDOT (and its predecessors) regarding Urban Ring matters.

Does this suggest that MassDOT's paring back of Phase 2 may result in less transparency? Surely EOEEA should respond, perhaps even invite public comment. Without transparency, what might be done by MassDOT as it continues with Phase 2 in limited fashion?

And doesn't any continuing role of the Citizens Advisory Committee as suggested by Secretary Mullan in his January 22nd letter have to be formalized by the Commonwealth to assure compliance with the MA Open Meeting and Public Records Laws governing governmental bodies?

Diesel oil spill at MWRA plant

An accident at the MWRA Cottage Farm plant just east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is estimated to have spilled 1000 gallons of diesel oil into the Charles. (See http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x626049994/Fuel-spill-sends-1-000-gallons-into-Charles-River.)

As crews from Clean Harbors and the MWRA worked around us late this afternoon, the MWRA's Chief Operating Officer, Mike Hornbrook, gave me a tour of the site and explained what had happened.

Oil from a delivery yesterday had overflowed exterior pipes at the western end of the plant. Around midnight a routine inspection discovered what had spilled onto the building and driveway and into the soil toward the river. That spill was confined and cleaned up then. Only in daylight did crews see from the telltale red dye from diesel in the river, bad news that oil had spilled onto the roof of the MWRA plant, into its stormwater system, and into the water at the river's very edge, where the ice is melted.

Since then crews had been working to contain and clean up the oil. They'll continue as long as it takes to get it done, Mr. Hornbrook said.

The cleanup has meant breaking the ice about 4' from the shore and installing a boom parallel to it to contain the spill, and sopping up the oil within the dammed part. Oil that splashed onto the ice beyond the boom will also be removed, he said, as will all contaminated soil ashore.

I was very happy to learn they have also put in a boom downriver, across the water under the first arch of the BU Bridge. It extends from the goose meadow shore where Kathy Podgers and I saw the Great Blue Heron last fall to the far pier of the bridge's first arch.

When I visited the goose meadow later and looked upriver through the arch and along the shore, I could see no red on the ice or in the water. Canada geese on the river ice and in the open water had no oil on them that I could see.

At the goose meadow there were lots of Canadas and mallard ducks as well as the Charles River White Geese and Charles River White Ducks. They were very happy to get the cracked corn I had brought them. I was very happy to see they were apparently unaffected by the spill.

Mr. Hornbrook said that in addition to the MWRA and Clean Harbors, there had been people from the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Coast Guard, and the Cambridge Fire Department, Department of Public Works, and the Conservation Commission at the site today.

I thanked Mr. Hornbrook for all the information and the tour. The MWRA has always been forthcoming and helpful, true stewards of the river in my opinion. Again, as the snow fell around us, Mr. Hornbrook said the crews would stay at the site as long as it took to clean up the spill. The agency's commitment to its mission was clear to me.

Postscript added February 11, 2010

To expand a bit on the concluding paragraph:

The contrast with the DCR's stewardship is striking. That agency installed 6 acres of commercial sod at Ebersol Fields in Boston in the spring of 2006. I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing at which the DCR asked for permission to add "Tartan," a fungicide not to be applied near water, to the usual mix of chemicals applied to the turf. The ConCom granted that permission.

As reported here previously, runoff from that sod and its continuing chemical maintenance fed the astronomical algae bloom of August and September 2006 and cancellation of the first Charles River swim. Thus fed, the algae continued their annual blooms at toxic levels thereafter and repeatedly forced the DCR to move the annual swim ever earlier, to try to beat the blooms. Reports were that you could smell the fertilizer from the fields in the middle of the river.

The DCR has never acknowledged its crime against the environment and creation of a public health hazard at Ebersol Fields. MEPA and the EPA and the Charles River Watershed Association know what the DCR did there but have failed to inform the public.

At a 2008 neighborhood meeting in Cambridgeport both the DCR planner and Charles River district manager blandly denied the DCR uses chemicals on the river at all. When asked why, if this were now indeed the case, they had changed their policy since installing the sod at Ebersol Fields in 2006, they sat wide-eyed and silent.

Ominously, the DCR and Cambridge have refused to say what chemicals are in the sod they installed at Magazine Beach in 2008 or what chemicals they will use to maintain it.

Again, in my opinion, the MWRA stands in stark contrast to the DCR in its stewardship of our public assets.

Marilyn Wellons

1000 gallons of diesel fuel added to habitat of Charles River White Geese.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

An accident today, February 10, 2010, has apparently added to the heartless treatment of the beautiful Charles River White Geese.

The Cambridge Chronicle has reported that 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel has been dumped into the Charles River at the MWRA pollution plant a few hundred feet from the location to which the heartless Governor Patrick, local reps and the Cambridge City Council have confined the beautiful Charles River White Geese.

The report may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x626049994/Fuel-spill-sends-1-000-gallons-into-Charles-River.

I am confident we will get a whole bunch of pious stuff out of the hypocrites but the last thing they will mention is the victims they have now been heartlessly abusing for years as part of various bizarre projects while lying that they are decent human beings and pro-environment.

More cons from the Cambridge Machine.

1. Introduction.
2. Walz lies about herself.
3. The Cambridge Machine lies about itself and worse.
4. Summary.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.

The major destructive games going on on the Charles River are in the Magazine Beach / BU Bridge area and east to the Longfellow Bridge.

This features REALLY rotten stunts from The Machine.

So, of course, they are now yelling about the River Street and Western Avenue bridges, PLUS trying to destroy the environment there as well.

Serious environmental destruction being fought for by The Machine, but the really rotten stuff is the Magazine Beach / BU Bridge area and east to the Longfellow Bridge.

2. Walz lies about herself.

The standard game is not direct lying. It is pontificating about much less important stuff and misdirection to the much less important stuff. The lie is the implication that the speaker is a responsible individual and that she is yelling about the important stuff.

State Representative Martha Walz is taking credit for meetings in Cambridge concerning the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.

Walz, of course, was deadly silent about all three meetings on the BU Bridge being kept away from the affected part of Cambridge.

Walz has bragged about the bizarre waste of money going on at Magazine Beach with outrageous environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse, neglecting to mention the latter two.

Walz was neutral about the failure to mitigate harm to the Charles River White Geese in the BU Bridge project.

Walz was neutral about the needless environmental destruction in the BU Bridge project.

Walz is silent about the hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat being destroyed between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

So Walz was silent about the BU Bridge meetings being held in secret and is yelling about the meeting place of the meetings on much less important Western Avenue / River Street bridges.

A truly reprehensible person (quoting a civil rights judge) lying about a really rotten record through misdirection.

3. The Cambridge Machine lies about itself and worse.

The Cambridge Machine creates all sorts of lovely, fake organizations designed to false impression that they are on the side they claim to be on.

One of these entities calls itself some sort of environment name including the word “port”. It has been belligerently “neutral” concerning the outrages on the Charles River. Its members were active in this major lie of an environmental congress, declaring piety about fancy buildings and not wanting to know about environmental destruction.

Now the other shoe is dropping. These groups have two fold functions: First they prevent people from standing up to irresponsible behavior. Secondly, they help irresponsible behavior.

This holding a public meeting to gin up support for the highway activists fighting to make work on the Charles River more environmentally destruction. The highway activists, of course, have close connections to the fake environmental group.

4. Summary.

What else can I say?

The Cambridge Machine is proving itself as “reprehensible” as ever.

Love that judge!!!

MassDOT meeting concerning the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges

1. Introductory.
2. Western Avenue and River Street bridges in context.
3. Location of Meeting.
4. Meeting.
A. General, state plans.
B. Anti-environment lobby comments.
C. My Comments.
D. Marilyn’s Comments.
E. The Cambridge pol comments.
5. Summary.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.

Last Wednesday evening, February 3, The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) conducted a public presentation concerning bridge repairs on the next two bridges to the west of the nearly 30 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

This is a very preliminary report. Marilyn will follow with a better report.

2. Western Avenue and River Street bridges in context.

These bridges are the Western Avenue bridge and the River Street Bridge. The Western Avenue bridge connects Western Avenue in Cambridge to Western Avenue in the Allston neighborhood of Boston. The River Street bridge connects River Street in Cambridge to Cambridge Street in Allston.

On the Cambridge side, River Street and Western Avenue connect at Central Square in Cambridge forming a very large, elongated triangle. On the Allston side, Western Avenue connects to Arsenal Street in Watertown. Western Avenue is now very easily 50% owned by Harvard University. Cambridge Street connect to Union Square Allston and then ends at Brighton Center, with Caritas St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center to its south and the Brighton branch of the Boston Police Department on its North. Brighton Center is to the west.

The other key streets impacted by these bridges are Memorial Drive on the Cambridge side of the Charles River and Soldiers Field Road with access roads on the Boston / Allston side of the Charles River. River Street is one way northbound to Central Square; Western Avenue is one way south bound from Central Square. The two combine with the bridges and an access road to the south of Soldiers’ Field Road which is one way east bound in this area to form a massive traffic circle. Direct ramps to and from Soldiers’ Field Road and to and from the Massachusetts Turnpike combine to make this a very complicated traffic arrangement.

In spite of the complexities, the system works quite well.

The 30 year habitat habitat of the Charles River White Geese is centered on the BU Bridge, the next bridge to the east of these bridges. It extends to the west about half the distance to the River Street Bridge.

3. Location of Meeting.

The meeting was conducted at the Allston Branch of the Boston Public Library on North Harvard Street between Western Avenue and Cambridge Street, about half a mile or a mile distant from the complicated intersection and bridges. Cambridge has two school facilities with auditoriums which are probably closer to this massive intersection / bridge arrangement.

4. Meeting.

A. General, state plans.

The state presented a number of plans of the area. In sharp contrast to the BU Bridge project, this project seems to have negligible impact on the environment and on local animals.

The state plans would appear to have negligible change in which is a well working interchange. The just will rebuild the two quite old bridges to ensure that they live another 75 years. They hope to add bike lanes if that is feasible.

B. Anti-environment lobby comments.

The destructiveness comes from the developer lobby.

One well organized bunch of lobbyists wants to add a small vehicle highway under the bridges impacting the Charles River with some sort of connection to Memorial Drive.

The successor to the Friends of Magazine Beach, the Charles River Conservancy supports this destructiveness and asks that its own contribution to environmental destruction in the area be continued. That is a bunch of lights at the water level which destroy night time habitat for resident animals, birds and fish. These have been added in recent years.

C. My Comments.

I objected to the light pollution and encouraged the state to rebuild in an historically responsible way and environmentally responsible way, without the lights. I omitted the highway addition out of oversight.

I did ask that signs be added to the River Street bridge to correct incompetent design by the predecessor agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, formerly the Metropolitan District Commission.

They, in the Boston tradition, keep the traffic direction on the bridge secret from those riding on it. This is common in the City of Boston. By keeping the traffic direction secret from those traveling in the legal direction, Boston makes their one way streets safer for wrong way drivers.

The impact on the River Street bridge is that the left lane, the lane the wrong way traffic would be coming, sees much less use than the middle and right lane, perhaps 50% less because a lot of people do not know they are on a one way street.

A few people do attempt to turn left onto Memorial Drive from the middle lane. It is impossible to tell if this is because of the bad signage or simply Massachusetts driving.

If MassDOT shows a minimal level of competence, in contrast to the predecessor agencies, a few signs, as required by highway sign standards, can be located at the southern end of the bridge identifying this one way street as a one way street. These signs would correct the lane use oddities and give the illegal left turn people one less excuse.

D. Marilyn’s Comments.

The Charles River parkland was created a hundred years ago explicitly to give us humans continued access to a rural landscape as the cities expanded. It was to be our refuge from city life—including the press of our fellow humans—a place to restore the human body and spirit.

This remains its primary function, but you’d never know that from comments at the DOT meeting.

Years ago automobile enthusiasts got huge sections of parkland paved over for Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, Memorial Drive, Greenough Boulevard—so-called parkways that are actually limited access highways. Now the very people who deplore what the auto has done to our health and the environment want to pave over much of what remains for limited access highways for cyclists. For the River Street, Western Ave., and Anderson Bridges they want underpasses for cyclists through the abutments. The underpasses would require redesign of structures on the National Register of Historic Places, realignment of existing pavement on both sides of the river, and chew up yet more parkland at the bridges themselves.

The DCR is steward of this land. In return for fees from the Head of the Charles and its concessionaires, the DCR has caused acres of public parkland to disappear into the river as its own and others’ vehicles churn landfill back into marsh and the overcut banks erode. So it’s no surprise the DCR’s booster club, the Charles River Conservancy, favors the underpasses and additional paving.

The CRC’s ornamental lighting of the bridges pollutes the nighttime environment. In response to comments about that, the lighting designer said they add less than 1000 kilowatts. When asked after the meeting if that meant they didn’t contribute to light pollution, he repeated the figure, then pointed to light pollution from street lights and declared himself happy with his work.

The DCR official at the meeting made a confused and/or confusing point, the gist of which was that DOT work on the Charles River bridges enjoys exemption from environmental review, but the DCR was handicapped in having to go before Conservation Commissions for work when the bridges were under their control. (As we know, DCR plans still govern the work at the BU Bridge and gratuitously destroy the environment there.)

At the time and afterwards I have tried to understand the point.

The DCR itself invoked Chapter 91 for its work at the BU Bridge, to exempt itself from the Cambridge ConCom’s powers to protect habitat at the goose meadow. When the DCR’s contractor illegally began work there on August 25, 2009 without the required notice to the ConCom, the ConCom stopped the work. In short order, however, it allowed work to resume, even though the DCR still lacked the Ch. 91 license—the Governor did not sign it until September 30, 2009.

For the BU Bridge the DCR chose a stormwater system that destroys most of the goose meadow. It has not chosen that system for the River Street and Western Avenue bridges. When I asked the DCR official why, he shrugged his shoulders. (When I asked why the CRC supports paving over more parkland, he said it has “a more European vision” for the river.)

If the DCR has labored under some handicap to comply with the Wetlands Protection Act I have failed to see it. In addition to this most recent example of illegality at the BU Bridge, there has been the illegal destruction of the goose meadow in 1999, the destruction of habitat falsely said not to exist at Magazine Beach, the failure of the 2004 "restoration" there to protect water quality and the 2008-09 installation of chemically-maintained commercial sod.

Given all this I wonder:

1. why we should think the DCR is more environmentally responsible than DOT;
2. why we should feel sorry for the DCR if it has been held to a higher standard;
3. why the DCR thinks it's held to a higher standard since it routinely circumvents, flouts, or gets a pass on whatever regulations the Cambridge ConCom might enforce; and
4. why the Cambridge ConCom routinely gives the DCR a pass on the repeated violations of the Wetlands Protection Act on the Charles River. Friends of the White Geese have documented these violations at ConCom meetings through the years, beginning in 2000.

On the last point, I remember the Mass. Audubon official who told me the then-MDC broke the law all the time and Mass Audubon couldn’t go after them on everything. Yes, it’s important to choose your battles. Yet the DCR’s free run on the Charles River in Cambridge is quite remarkable. It has gotten passes from Mass Audubon, the Cambridge ConCom, the Accelerated Bridge Program, and our elected officials.

Can we expect to lose yet more parkland to DCR development? Preserving the land costs little. Infrastructure development costs a lot.


E. The Cambridge pol comments.

Councilor Davis and Representative Walz demonstrated striking arrogance.

Last year, the DCR conducted two meetings on the BU Bridge repairs on the BU campus and one in Kendall Square. The Kendall Square meeting was further from the site than the BU campus meetings.

The reason was obvious.

The BU Bridge repairs involve needless environmental destruction and needless increase in harm to the Charles River White Geese. No mediation was proposed and none was implemented.

I objected loudly.

Walz and Davis are long fighters for heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction in the BU Bridge area. The were silent with a wink and a nod.

They are also silent with a wink and a nod to the pending destruction in Cambridge of hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat between the BU Bridge and the second bridge to the east.

Davis was there last Wednesday. She went from “neutrality” loudly objected to the failure to locate the INCONSEQUENTIAL meetings on these two bridges in Cambridge.

She went from “neutrality” to a bad location for neetings when there is involved heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction involved, which she supports to objecting to a bad location when the meetings are inconsequential.

Walz has distributed emails objecting to the location.

5. Summary.

More lying about which side they are on by the pols.

The developer lobby works closely with them.

The pols want the irresponsible behavior from Magazine Beach to the east buried.

The pols want to get the destructiveness of the developer lobby implemented.

The pols want to lie to the voters about which side they are on.

Monteiro case top ten but not top 10?

1. Introductory.
2. Letter to MLW Editor.
3. Reporter: Top ten award, but will not correct list.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.

The case of Malvina Monteiro is yet another excellent example to put the lie to the City of Cambridge’s non-stop claims to progressive sainthood.

The city council is clearly anti-environment while using their massive machine to lie that they are pro-environment.

Looking at the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is very difficult to say that the situation is any different with regard to civil rights.

Judge and jury found that Cambridge destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black Cape Verdean woman serving as head of their Police Review Board. They found that this was in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge’s opinion did a very good job of proving the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.

On reading the judge’s opinion, which is reported on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, I came to an opinion as to the action which would be appropriate for a pro-civil rights city council.

That action would be to vote to obtain an order from the judge firing the City Manager without pension and without golden parachute.

The Cambridge City Council has not so voted. They have not even been faced with a motion to fire the City Manager without pension and without golden parachute. Much the worse, the Cambridge City Council, with this excellent opinion in front of them, voted to fund an appeal.

The jury verdict was for slightly over $4.5 million including $3.5 million penal. The judgment was for slightly over $5 million.

I, as an attorney, religiously read Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

MLW does an annual top ten awards list. I looked for Monteiro in the 2008 list and in the 2009 list. Neither time was it reported on the list although the size of the award would seem to indicate that it should be.

2. Letter to MLW Editor.

I sent the following letter off to the MLW Editor early this morning, February 2, by email:

************

Henriette Campagne, Esq.
Editor
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Dear Ms. Campagne,

I could be wrong, but I am surprised that the case of Malvina Monteiro, et. al. v. City of Cambridge et al, Middlesex Superior #MICV2001-02737 did not appear in your January 25 report on the largest verdicts of 2009. I thought that last year I was surprised that it did not appear on the list of 2008 verdicts, so I looked for it again very deliberately.

Jury verdict came down on May 23, 2008 for slightly over $4.5 million with $3.5 million penal. At the time of your 2008 report, Monteiro was in post trial motions. Since then judgment has been entered on June 2, 2009 for slightly over $5 million with interest and the case is now in post judgment motions.

This is the case in which Judge and Jury found that the Cambridge City Manager fired this Black Cape Verdean Woman who was the head of the Cambridge Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The key judge’s opinion was notable for the use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the Cambridge City Manager.

I note that case #4 this year, $6.4 million, is in post trial motions, and that Monteiro would appear to fall between case #6, $5.26 million and #7, $3.9 million.

My memory was that I looked last year and that it would have fallen in the top ten then but was not reported.

Is my memory wrong? Or should one of the two reports be corrected?

Thank you for whatever input you can provide.

3. Reporter: Top ten award, but will not correct list.

This morning I got a call from an MLW reporter who indicated that Monteiro should have been listed in the 2008 list of top ten awards of 2008 because the jury verdict came down in that year and the award was large enough.

He stated that the lawyer obtaining the award has been honored by MLW because of the case but that their list would not be corrected.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part V) ̵ Practical Aspects to Noncompliance

Archie Mazmanian Continues his Series on the Massachusetts Whistleblower Statute.

*********

This series started on 12/18/09. I had expected to hear by now whether Cambridge is in compliance with subsection (g) of the MA Whistleblower Statute. [The Statute is available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/law/149-185 - download and print it out for reference. Also, refer to Parts I through IV of this series.] But I have not heard back. Let’s assume that Cambridge is not in compliance. What is the impact of such failure upon an employee of the City of Cambridge?

When I last checked, all but one appellate court decision on the Statute were at the federal level. None of the appellate decisions I have reviewed discussed what happens if a MA governmental employer fails to comply with Subsection (g). But several of such decisions have denied recovery to a MA governmental employee for failure to provide in writing to the MA governmental employer complaints of the type contemplated by the Statute before commencing a lawsuit against the latter. Why? Because “public body” as defined in subsection (a)(3)(B) includes “ … any federal, state or local judiciary ….”

Subsection (c)(1) of the Statute would not prevent a MA governmental employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee if the latter “ … makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment TO THE ATTENTION OF A SUPERVISOR OF THE EMPLOYEE BY WRITTEN NOTICE AND HAS AFFORDED THE EMPLOYER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE ACTIVITY, POLICY OR PRACTICE.” [Emphasis added.] (An exception to this requirement is provided under subsection (c)(2) discussed below.)

Recall that notices of the MA governmental employer required under subsection (g) of the Statute “ … shall include the name of the person or persons the employer has designated to receive written notifications pursuant to subsection (c).” So how can the employee comply with subsection (c)(1) if the employer has not complied with subsection (g)?

Subsection (a)(4) of the Statute provides a definition for “Supervisor” based upon the employment relationship of the employee “ … or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under subsection (g).” What if the employee’s complaint under the Whistleblower Statute relates to conduct, etc, of the “Supervisor”? Might the policy behind the requirements of subsection (g) be thwarted by the failure of the employer to make the designation required under subsection (g)? Might the employee be placed in a “Catch-22” situation by such failure?

In effect, the MA governmental employee is between the rock and the hard place as a result of the failure of the employer to comply with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute. While such failure does not deprive the employee of his/her rights under the Statute, it makes navigating its provisions risky without consulting with an attorney (which can be expensive). Might a MA governmental employer intentionally fail to comply with subsection (g) to frustrate an employee from taking any of the steps outlined in subsection (b)(1), (2) and (3) concerned with “activity, policy or practice in violation of law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or environment” because of the employee’s concern with retaliatory employment action?

Yes, there is an exception under subsection (c)(2) from the requirement to provide written notice under subsection (c)(1); but it would be risky relying upon an exception even with the advice of counsel in being assured that an exception would apply. (Again, such legal advice may be expensive.)

And there is a relatively short 2-year statute of limitations under subsection (d) of the Statute for the employee to commence a civil action seeking remedies for any retaliatory actions taken by the employer against the employee.

Let’s assume that despite the failure of the employer to comply with subsection (g) the employee provides the written notice pursuant to subsection (c)(1) to a supervisor to afford “the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.” How long might that take? How may the supervisor react to the written notice especially if the employee’s written notice concerns that supervisor? Again, the employee may be placed within the rock and the hard place.

If the MA governmental employer had complied with subsection (g) of the Statute, perhaps the person designated by the employer “to receive written notifications pursuant to subsection (c)” would not be a direct supervisor of the employer. In the Towns of Arlington and Brookline, each has so designated its Town Administrator as such a person. Presumably there would be a good faith obligation on the part of such a designee to investigate the employee’s written notice, thus affording “the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.”

Are the good employees of the good City of Cambridge between the rock and the hard place or is Cambridge in compliance with the requirements of subsection (g)? If anyone knows, I’m in the book in Brookline.

Cambridge is but one of the 350 MA municipalities required to comply with the Whistleblower Statute, in addition to the numerous MA state and county governmental employers. The Statute not only protects employees, it also protects the public which funds MA governmental employers.

[Note: I had thought that this series would be concluded with Part V. However, there are more aspects of the Whistleblower Statute that should be addressed. This is a statewide matter in the public’s interest. The letter and spirit of the Statute should be complied with by all MA governmental employers. So bear with me for a Part VI and possibly a Part VII.]

This week’s Cambridge Chronicle, Fake “Cambridge Climate Congress”

1. Introductory. Chronicle, fake Congress.
2. Fake Climate Congress, Environmental Destruction at the Museum of Science, Reality.
3. Op Ed in favor of clean water.
4. Chronicle in context.


Bob La Trémouille reports:


1. Introductory. Chronicle, fake Congress.

This week’s Cambridge Chronicle could have been organized around a theme.

It published Marilyn’s “Cambridge Climate Congress” analysis in hard copy which it previously published on line and which we passed on to you a few days ago.

It also published my analysis which I will print in part 2. This analysis is also on line.

The real horror of the environmental situation in Cambridge comes from a gathering of outrages.

First of all, the city government is belligerently destructive of the environment, but the voters are strongly pro-environment. So the government does a lot of lying. They lie through fake initiatives which do everything except address the greatest environmental problem in Cambridge: the destructiveness of its governmental entities.

This latest “initiative” combines this factor with the organizational impressiveness of the destroyers in question.

The Cambridge Pols look like an organization which has been created over the past 35 years by two connected city managers. Floating within the organization are the organizations of the very destructive city councilors.

You put these people together and you see declarations of truth with frequently coincidental overlap with truth. The organization runs around spouting proclamations which commonly are nonsensical, but since they all say it, the poor voter only hears one story and that one story, whether true or not, becomes “reality” in Cambridge, MA.

People see the outrages and figure “They would not stoop so low,” based on the nonstop lies of environmental sainthood. The Cambridge Climate Congress, participated in by invitees only, fits the pattern to a tee.


2. Fake Climate Congress, Environmental Destruction at the Museum of Science, Reality.

I have previously responded to a piece of nonsense put out in behalf of the fake Cambridge Climate Congress as an op ed.

The Chronicle had an excellent photo of a row of beautiful trees destroyed, apparently by the state, in front of the Museum of Science. That photo was in the January 14 Cambridge Chronicle.

The Chronicle got a reply from the author of the op ed. The reply was published on line with the photo. I submitted the following letter. The Congress’ author’s reply was, as near as I can gather, pulled, and the following published in the January 21, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle” and on line.

***********

1/18/10:

RE: Letter: Destruction at Museum of Science in Context

A few weeks ago, the Chronicle printed an “environmental” op-ed on behalf of a group created by the Cambridge City Council.

The op-ed presented the group’s draft report.

The group was “neutral” on massive environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

The group was “neutral” on the destruction of hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat on Memorial Drive. The group was “neutral” on the destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond. The group was “neutral” on the pending destruction of the Alewife reservation and its animal habitat for flood storage that should be placed under a parking lot just north of the nearby tracks.

The group was “neutral” on the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive introduced grass which replaces green grass that survived most of a century until destroyed by their friends. The group was “neutral” on the heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the 30 year native Charles River White Geese as part of the bizarre projects on Memorial Drive.

The group supported the increase of funding for “new” open space.

The author of the group’s op-ed has communicated with the Chronicle in opposition to the destruction of a row of excellent trees on McGrath / O’Brien at the Museum of Science. The planners are going to replace those now destroyed excellent trees with saplings.

But, the destruction at the Museum of Science is EXACTLY what the Cambridge City Council and its friends in the state bureaucracy are talking about when they brag about “new” open space. That destruction is exactly what the destruction at Memorial Drive, Fresh Pond and Alewife is all about.

“New” open space is a euphemism and a lie describing exactly what is happening at the Museum of Science. “New” open space is a euphemism for heartless animal abuse.

But I am confident that the writer and the participants in this “environmental” gathering will not be able to understand.

They have been told that fancy buildings are all that counts. They have been told that it is inconceivable that their environmentally destructive controllers are environmentally destructive.

So, I am confident that we will continue to see the same people spouting pious in both directions. I am confident that those spouting pious in both directions will be totally unable to understand why their world is being destroyed.

And they WILL NOT look in a mirror while they are wondering.


3. Op Ed in favor of clean water.

On the op ed page was a treatise and photo. The second author of two authors was Ellen Mass. She created a group which she calls the Friends of Alewife Reservation. Since its creation (as described above), it has fought for the destruction of the Alewife Reservation. The group has close connections to the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council.

Groups like this are very much too normal in Cambridge.

The treatise speaks out lovely about protection of the waterways in western Cambridge.

It is silent on the soon to come destruction of Alewife, and silent on the position of Ms. Mass with regard to that destruction.

It is silent on the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond.

It is silent on the ongoing poisoning of the Charles River and other continuing outrages there by Cambridge pols and state bureaucrats.

But is spouts in a very lovely manner on clean waterways.


4. Chronicle in context.

The fake Cambridge Climate Congress was scheduled to have its second and final session yesterday, Saturday, January 24. I do not believe the Cambridge Chronicle has ever done a story on it. The Chronicle is to be commended for that.

The letters page had four letters, two on Galluccio, and mine and Marilyn’s. The op ed page was the lovely ode to clean water.

I think everything on the front page has been published on line, but the on line presentation does not approach the impact given by the paper.

The front page above the fold is devoted to a large photo of a resident standing with her neighbor’s place in the background.

The article reports her fighting against the neighbor’s harboring two chickens and three ducks as pets.

The editorial page features a cartoon presenting Donald Duck, Daffy Duck and a chicken hawk from the same studio as Daffy. They are carrying signs. Donald’s reads: “Let us ducks live here!” Daffy’s reads: “Ducks are people too!” The chicken hawk’s reads: “I’m a chicken hawk. We need more chickens!”

In place of the editorial is a guest commentary on Haiti.

MassDOT initiates suspension of Urban Ring environmental review.

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s report.
3. Bob.

Archie Mazmanian reports with editing and comments from Bob La Trémouille.

1. Introduction.

At the recent meeting of the Urban Ring Citizens’ Advisory Committee, MassDOT Chair / Secretary Mullan indicated an intent to end environmental review of Urban Ring phase 2, fancy buses. Secretary Mullan has followed up.

2. Archie’s report.

Jeff Mullan's 1/22/10 response to EOEEA has been posted at the Urban Ring website. It runs 5 pages and should be read with care by those interested in Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. The bottom line of the letter is that it "... suspends any further MEPA review on the Project and withdraws the Project from the Special Review Procedure." We'll have to await a response from EOEEA to get a better understanding of what such suspension and withdrawal will mean environmentally as MassDOT does proceed with certain portions of Phase 2 that will include Bus Rapid Transit.

Mullan's letter makes no reference to rail or to Phase 3. Nor does there appear that much will be done regarding the Longwood/Fenway area, which continues to expand with increasing traffic and transportation issues. While the letter talks about continuing the Citizens Advisory Committee role, conferring with stakeholders and ABC business and institutional members, no specific reference is made to how the public will be involved during such suspension and withdrawal from MEPA. This raises the issue of transparency, which of course is part of accountability.

Mullan's letter includes this: "Indeed, our analyses show that, if current trends are left unchecked, both the Green Line and the Red Line could be operating over capacity during the peak hour by the year 2030." Over the years I have heard transportation experts say, in connection with a real estate project's impact on traffic and transportation, that the roads have "capacity" for the project. I asked such an expert at a public meeting if "capacity" means just short of gridlock. The expert responded with a smile. Many riders of the Green Line and the Red Line might think that capacity will be reached much sooner than that for those Lines - and they're not smiling.

3. Bob.

Archie’s closing comments are of major importance.

The need to get people off the downtown portion of the Red and Green Lines during rush hour is the reason I have been working on this project since the mid-80's.

That goal cannot be achieved with less than a Heavy Rail urban ring subway line being constructed to connect the Rapid Transit spokes and give people a MEANINGFUL alternative to going into town.

Questions to and about the Cambridge Climate Congress

Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter on January 17, 2010, to the Cambridge Chronicle, which has posted it online.

To the Editor:

Will the Climate Congress yield any positive changes in city policies? Its Draft Recommendations call for some actions to undo what has led to the increase, not reduction, in carbon emissions since 2002. Most notable among these policies has been the ever more refined sacrifice of all other values to increasing the tax base and feeding the city's contractors. What may have passed for long-run strategy now stands as short-run perversion of the public good.

Exhibit A: In order to provide needed playing fields for our schools and youth groups--without taking property off future tax rolls--the city has paid to remove, then install, 7 acres of dirt and grass on state parkland at Magazine Beach. What are and will be the emissions of trucking and construction, the new chemically grown and maintained sod, the swales to try to keep its toxic runoff from the river?

The Climate Congress Draft recommends a "Holistic Land Strategy"--the "optimal integrated usage of green open space . . . . providing nature preservation for people and animals." Rather than increase such open space, the city destroys it.

Exhibit B: At St. James Episcopal Church in North Cambridge, the Planning Board and Historical Commission are allowing the congregation and a developer to build condos on the church's garden.

In addition to its value as a carbon sink, the garden and its mature trees are a public asset. A 1987 Preservation Restriction Agreement for $600,000 between the church and the Massachusetts Historical Commission and subsequent preservation funds have protected the structure, garden, and sight lines of the historic landmark. On January 7, 2010, the Commission Chair noted its ongoing eligibility for Community Preservation Act funds.

By the city's calculus, however, our very investment in historic preservation here is reason to allow the destruction. At the January 7 hearing, the Commission agreed that enough public money has been spent. And so the garden and sight lines will be destroyed for condos, to increase the tax base.

Exhibit C: Trees are carbon sinks until cut down, whereupon they become carbon emitters. At Fresh Pond, Vellucci Park, Harvard Motor Inn, Squirrel Brand, LBJ apartments, Cambridge pays contractors to cut down healthy trees and replace them with saplings. This policy appears in no calculation of our carbon footprint I've found.

What are the odds the Climate Congress can change the regime's perverted calculations? Any takers?

****


The Cambridge Climate Congress will meet on January 23, 2010, to consider Draft Recommendations from the December session. The final recommendations will be addressed to the City Council, calling for Policy Orders on the city's response to climate change.

Further Extension Requested on Urban Ring Environmental Document

Archie Mazmanian reports:

[MassDOT Commissioner / Secretary] Jeff Mullan's 1/15/10 "non-response" to EOEEA (available at the Urban Ring website) seeks an extension to January 22nd for MassDOT's letter of intentions concerning Phase 2 of the Urban Ring so that consideration can be given to the "thoughtful comments" provided by CAC members to a "draft response" Mr. Mullan shared with the CAC. Unfortunately, with respect to openness, the public has not been able to share in such "draft response" and such "thoughtful comments." So instead of punting as suggested in my commentary following the 1/11/10 CAC meeting, MassDOT has called a timeout.

[Ed: The meeting report may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/urban-ring-phase-15-deemphasis-of-urban.html.]

Federal Moneys for Urban Ring Rail?

Archie Mazmanian reports:

1. Report.
2. Bob Response.


1. Report.

MassDOT Commissioner Mullan mentioned at the start of the 1/11/10 CAC [ed: Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee] meeting that he had just come back from meetings on transportation in Washington, DC, which he described as positive but did not provide details.

Yesterday's (1/14/10) NYTimes has an article on page A25 by Michael Cooper titled "Administration Loosens Purse Strings for Transit Projects" that starts with this:

"The Obama administration will make it easier for cities and states to spend federal money on public transit projects, and particularly on the light-rail systems that have become popular in recent years, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday."

I wonder if Mr. Mullan attended the DC meeting that discussed this. Recall his statement at the CAC meeting that money was not available for Phase 3 rail.

The NYTimes article makes no mention of Bus Rapid Transit, which under Bush/Cheney was a transportation favorite. I plan to follow up to determine the Obama administration's position on Bus Rapid Transit vis-a-vis light rail.

2. Bob Response.

Secretary Mullan was very careful to use the term “fixed rail” with regard to the “Phase 3" Urban Ring.

The Cambridge Pols and their stand ins can never understand anything other than “light rail.”

The environmentally destructive and inferior transportation wise BU Bridge fixed rail crossing is Light Rail. The Cambridge Pols have trouble understanding a lot of things when reality is contradictory to their goals.

The fixed rail alternative which makes sense from a transportation point of view, from an environmental point of view, from a Red Sox point of view and from a Longwood Medical Area point of view (especially the initial phase) is the Heavy Rail Kenmore Crossing.

I would hope Archie will look into Heavy Rail subway as well.

URBAN RING PHASE 1.5? Deemphasis of the Urban Ring effort.

Bob La Trémouille edits with some reporting.

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.
2. Bob Addendum.
A. Constructive Language.
B. Bus 66, Melnea Cass.
C. Partial Implementation by others?


1. Archie Mazmanian reports.

MassDOT Commissioner Jeff Mullan opened the January 11, 2010 Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) meeting with enthusiasm for the future of rail in MA with the closing on the Commonwealth’s CSX purchase set for May, in combination with the potential for South Station and the South Postal rail project in the news recently. That of course is long range, perhaps long, long range, that will increase commuter radial rail lines from the suburbs into Boston, reducing motor vehicle travel on congested highways. And there should be money available for such rail projects.

But the primary purpose of this meeting was to address the situation facing Phase 2 of the Urban Ring project, with a January 15th letter of MassDOT’s intentions due to be provided to the EOEEA. (Visitors to this Blog may recall that MassDot had requested – and received – an extension of its earlier December 15, 2009 due date requirement.)

Apparently in response to comments made at the CAC meeting on December 1, 2009, regarding skipping Phase 2’s Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) System and going directly to Phase 3’s light/heavy rail, Mr. Mullan stated that MA will have money available for some bus improvements but not for Phase 3 rail. In effect, MassDOT plans to punt regarding its Phase 2 intentions by requesting suspension of the MEPA process as a whole to do some of the doable parts of Phase 2. At the same time, Mr. Mullan wants to keep the planning process going and to keep the Ring together, including the CAC.

CAC Chair Tom Nally made the point that “the devil is in the details,” suggesting that perhaps MassDOT might make available in advance a draft of its letter of intention to the CAC for input from its members, as perhaps the role of the CAC may change with suspension of the MEPA process. Mr. Mullan said he would promptly oblige.

Comments from CAC members were quite limited; in fact, there was mostly silence. Public comments were much more extensive, including those of an engineer who talked of “Fred’s Law” for major public projects, such as the “BIG DIG.” The “Fred” is of course Fred Salvucci. This engineer pointed out that the Urban Ring has been lacking, among other things, the leadership necessary to make the Urban Ring project successful. I would hope that this engineer might contact this Blog to provide details of “Fred’s Law.”

Bob made some comments that he will elaborate on below.

I focused upon Mr. Mullan’s statement that MA will have money for some Phase 2 bus improvements. I pointed out that Phase 1 had provided for some bus improvements; that Phase 2’s focus was upon the heralded BRT System with its 60-foot articulated BRT buses; that his concept of “bus improvements” might be considered a reversion to Phase 1; that perhaps his concept of “bus improvements” might be described as Phase 1.5; that by the time the MEPA process may be restored, the vaunted BRT System technology may become obsolete. I further commented that passengers of cross-town buses are treated like second-class citizens compared to those who use light/heavy rail for public transit.

What I failed to comment on was the apparent long range focus of MassDOT on commuter rail expansion to the suburbs that so enthused Mr. Mullan at the beginning of this meeting. This focus will benefit those in the suburbs in getting into and out of Boston. In the meantime, here in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Everett, Chelsea and Medford, the Urban Ring’s compact communities, we get “bus improvements,” whatever that may consist of. The problems with the MBTA radial lines into Boston’s core will not be seriously addressed, whereas MassDOT has its eyes on commuter rail improvements and extensions to the suburbs. Is this fair?

I also failed to comment on what it will mean to suspend the MEPA process? Will public participation and oversight be thwarted by such suspension? For this we shall have to await EOEEA’s response to MassDOT’s upcoming January 15th letter of its intentions regarding Phase 2 (or Phase 1.5?).

By the way, in a partial response to my comments, Ned Codd stated that the BRT System technology would not become obsolete by the time if and when Phase 2 is back on track [but of course not rail!]. I neglected to counter this with the fact that a significant aspect of the BRT System technology is dedicated busways for its 60-foot articulated buses that would be limited at the many chokepoints along the proposed Phase 2 routes on narrow streets in the compact communities competing in mixed traffic.

So for Phase 2 it’s third down and long, and it looks like MassDOT will punt.

2. Bob Addendum.

A. Constructive Language.

The Cambridge Pols and bad guys in the bureaucracy use all sorts of dirty tricks to achieve their goals.

The Cambridge Pols and their intermediaries are fighting for the BU Bridge crossing of the Charles River in the ultimate REAL rapid transit phase. This is light rail, streetcars, as opposed to heavy rail, Orange Line / Red Line which would be used for the other possible Charles River Crossing, the Kenmore Crossing.

There is no transportation argument that I am aware of to prefer the BU Bridge crossing over the Kenmore Crossing, so they do a lot of lying. One lie was put out in meeting on the topic in Cambridge. They simply lied that the Kenmore Crossing was dead. The much dirtier and more consistent lie is to refer to real rapid transit as “Light Rail” and neglect to mention or just “not understand” that the only crossing of meaningful value, the Kenmore Crossing is Heavy Rail. Thus they fool well meaning people into supporting an option which has no transportation value.

Secretary Mullan used the term “fixed rail” for the meaningful phase.

I very strongly appreciate that term.

B. Bus 66, Melnea Cass.

Mentioned a couple of times in Secretary Mullan’s presentation were improvements to Bus 66, and to Melnea Cass Boulevard in Roxbury.

Bus 66 runs from Harvard Square to Union Square, Allston to Brookline Village to Brigham Circle to Dudley Square in Roxbury.

Bus 66 goes by the Beacon Yards in Allston, which is on the north side of Cambridge Street. This site is owned by Harvard and looks like Harvard’s intended location for a relocated Harvard Medical School. The phase 2 package includes a bunch of bus proposals to service Harvard’s Allston campus.

On close questioning, the improvements would appear to be housekeeping type improvements to make the existing line work better without changing its route.

Melnea Cass Boulevard is the extension of the on ramp to/from Mass. Ave. to/from the Southeast Expressway / I93, connecting to Mass. Ave. just south of Boston Medical Center. The extension of the ramp, Melnea Cass Boulevard, starts by travelling west and then curves to the north, ending near Ruggles Station.

As part of the lesser efforts which will continue without formal Urban Ring name, the state will look into grade separated BRT buses on Melnea Cass.

C. Partial Implementation by others?

A gentlemen sitting near the CAC leadership discussed the Allston bus improvements and then asked if there would be any mechanism to prevent activities which would block parts of the Urban Ring proposal.

I responded that there is a building going in near Fenway Park which includes Yawkey Station on the Commuter Rail.

The Heavy Rail / Kenmore Crossing’s BIG advantage over the BU Bridge / Light Rail is a linking of three stations in this area. The Urban Ring Kenmore Station would be constructed under the Brookline Avenue Bridge above the Mass. Pike. It would connect to the existing Green Line Station at Kenmore and to Yawkey Station, thus providing excellent connections. It provides excellent service to Fenway Park.

The Light Rail crossing would move Yawkey Station to a location just east of St. Mary’s Street between Mountfort Street and the Mass. Pike, a block from Marsh Chapel, the heart of Boston University. This would be considerably inferior to the megastation created by the Heavy Rail / Kenmore Crossing.

That building with Yawkey Station clearly is a partial implementation of the Urban Ring Heavy Rail Kenmore Crossing. Clearly, there are a lot of ways to get around it, but the existence of that station as part of that building adds one more plus for the Urban Ring Heavy Rail Kenmore crossing.

Galluccio: Another judge condemns the Cambridge pols

Bob La Trémouille reports.

State Senator Anthony Galluccio, former Cambridge City Councilor and Mayor was sentenced to a year in jail today for violating the terms of his sentence of house arrest. I must assume the judge was correct in his interpretation of reality.

Galluccio flunked breathalyzer tests which were a condition of his house arrest. He blamed it on his toothpaste.

From my point of view, this is just another example of the corrupt world of Cambridge politics meeting reality.

While the Cambridge Pols are in Cambridge, “reality” as described by them, frequently has very major differences from reality in the real world of Cambridge, but they keep on spouting nonsense with great piety.

The Cambridge Pols' “reality” is reality which frequently has no real basis, but it passes as reality in a world dominated by people who do not want to know reality.

When you get into the real world, decent human beings have contempt for the corrupt, fake “reality” which is paraded about by the Cambridge Pols.

Galluccio’s judge joins Monteiro’s judge who joins the Boston Conservation Commission and, basically, joins pretty much any objective person looking at the ongoing outrages in Cambridge, MA who is not in sway of the Cambridge pols or in sway of people controlled by the Cambridge pols.

Monteiro’s judge and jury call the City of Cambridge “reprehensible” for destroying a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Boston Conservation Commission has placed sanctions on the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation for environmental destruction on the Charles River which is considered normal by appointees of the Cambridge City Manager.

And the Cambridge pols call environmental destroyers “environmentalists.”

The Cambridge pols claim a government is pro civil rights which destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro and which still refuses to respect the very sound decision by the Monteiro judge.

Decent people have contempt for politics as usual in the City of Cambridge.

That contempt is well deserved.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part IV)

1. Introduction.
2. Report.
3. Prior Reports.


1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian proceeds with his series on the Massachusetts Whistleblower Statute, discussing tactics an employee might use to ensure compliance.

2. Report.

A MA governmental employee who is not aware whether his/her MA governmental employer is in compliance with subsection (g) of the MA Whistleblower Statute could check: (1) bulletin/notice boards of the employer at its various facilities used to post notices required by federal/state laws for its employees; (2) the employer’s website that might include an employee/personnel handbook; (3) written materials periodically (annually) distributed to employees. (The Statute is available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/law/149-185 - download and print it out for reference. Also, refer to Parts I through III of this series.)

If such review/search does not reveal that the employer is in compliance, the employee might consider disclosing or threatening to disclose what appears to be a violation of law by the employer. The MA Whistleblower Statute would provide protection to the employee from retaliation by the employer affecting the employment relationship. But the employee might be concerned that any such retaliation might be so subtle and thus difficult to prove that this action might be too risky, sort of a Catch-22.

A less risky method might be by means of a public records request under the MA Public Records Law made by a concerned resident who is NOT a MA governmental employee. Such a request can be quite simple, focusing solely upon records of the MA governmental employer regarding its compliance with subsection (g) of the MA Whistleblower Statute. A response would be required within 10 days of the request. Any charges associated with the response should be quite minimal.

Compliance by the employer with subsection (g) is not complicated. See Part II of this series for suggestions. The employer could have notices contemplated by subsection (g) posted at appropriate bulletin/notices boards at its facilities, or at its website, or furnish copies directly to its employees with periodic distributions of other notices required by federal/state laws.

Transparency and accountability are required for good governance. In addition to the MA Public Records Law referenced above, there is the MA Open Meeting Law. While these laws serve the public well, certain conduct by public officials may not be readily subject thereto. Too often action by federal authorities is required to uncover alleged skullduggery by MA public officials rather than by MA public authorities.

Perhaps the MA Whistleblower Statute might serve to augment the MA Public Records and Open Meeting Laws. Combined they might be described as the “Political Trinity of Good Governance.” Sadly, the MA Whistleblower Statute does not seem to be in full force and effect in MA’s 350 municipalities and the many State and County offices/agencies included in the definition of “employer” in subsection (a)(3) of the Statute.

This Statute has been around since early 1994. Media in MA seem not to have paid much attention to the Statute. Why? One would think the Fourth Estate would be at the forefront with its investigative capabilities to explore the status of compliance with subsection (g) of the MA Whistleblower Statute by the many MA governmental employers. Isn’t it possible that if there had been timely compliance with the letter and spirit of the Statute by MA governmental employers, such might have served as a deterrent to some of the public scandals that have surfaced since 1994? It’s not too late for the media to follow up; letters to editors might serve to goose the media into journalistic action.

Maybe in due course whistling will be heard in the sunlight for all to hear.

[Part V of this series may serve as a wrap-up with potpourri commentary on the MA Whistleblower Statute.]

3. Prior Reports.

Prior reports may be founds as follows:

Report 1: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-i.html.
Report 2: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-ii.html.
Report 3: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-iii.html.

Cambridge Climate Congress Con Game: Chronicle op ed nonsense

1. Introduction.
2. Short version of my comments.
3. “Position” of wife who did not identify her relationship.
a. Introduction.
b. Stated position.
c. Taken in context of her record.
4. Summary.
5. Name applied to con game.


Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.

Cambridge’s “reprehensible” (quoting a civil rights judge) city government stays in power with a lot of smoke and mirrors, firmly based on a very large organization created by two related City Managers over the past 35 years.

One of the tools is controlled groups of “members of the public” who spout the party line.

It is always fascinating to observe this machine in action.

Usually the dirtiest stuff is kept strictly verbal. The organization has come out from under its rock in the Chronicle on line.

About ten days ago, the paper edition published the glorious account of a group with contempt for the environment loudly claiming to be saints. This was preceded by it being printed on line.

I have responded with multiple posts, but the wife of the original writer (never identifying herself as that) put in a shocking example of the manipulation of people minds by this “reprehensible” (love that judge) organization.

2. Short version of my comments.

I have posted a number of quite long comments in response to the official party announcement in the Cambridge Chronicle. The following is a shorter version:

**********

The City Council’s "climate congress" has called for "significantly more dollars for open space acquisition."

This call is only meaningful if taken in context.

This "climate congress" combines this call for expenditures with "neutrality" on:

 The coming destruction of the Alewife reservation, trees and wildlife habitat, for flood storage that belongs 500 feet to the south.

 The ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees and wildlife habitat at Fresh Pond.

 Soon to come, apparently with Obama moneys, destruction of hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat on Memorial Drive.

 The ongoing dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, replacing green maintenance which functioned very well on Magazine Beach for most of a century.

 The introduction of a starvation wall of introduced vegetation in place of native vegetation separating Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The native vegetation elsewhere bordering the Charles is destroyed twice a year. The bizarre wall simply grows. A long time representative of the bureaucracy has bragged that it starves the Charles River White Geese.

 The reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach to build a drainage system to PARTIALLY drain off the poisons now being dumped on Magazine Beach.

 The ongoing and increasingly heartless abuse of the beautiful and valuable Charles River White Geese.
Taken in context the "climate congress"’s call for more money for "open space acquisition" is very distressing.

The Cambridge Pols have a name for a lot of the environmental destruction this "climate congress" supports through silence. The Cambridge Pols call this environmental destruction the creation of "new open space."

Cambridge pols claim they are providing "new open space" when they are providing environmental destruction aimed at existing open space. They juggle, destroy and lie that they are doing something positive.

In Cambridge government, there is no meaningful difference between "new open space" and the "environmental congress"’s "open space acquisition."

The "climate congress"’s call for "open space acquisition" has to be interpreted as calling for more of the outrageous environmental destruction its members consider normal and acceptable.

The net result to me is that the activities of the city council’s "climate congress" are a lot worse than a con game which did nothing.

In addition to or as part of the con game, this "environmental congress" supports more environmental destruction and more heartless animal abuse.

This "climate congress" advocates that much more destruction of our irreplaceable world.

Shame, shame, shame.

3. “Position” of wife who did not identify her relationship.

a. Introduction.

The basic con the Cambridge Pols use is the concept of “unity.” They demand “consensus.”

Consensus is an interesting concept. Its great defect comes when there are two very meaningful sides and one side is doing very terrible things, and wants to keep on doing very terrible things.

The concept of consensus gets even worse when the villains have the expertise and the well meaning people have none or very little.

This is the defining concept behind the Cambridge Pols organization. They reach a consensus in which the villains get what they want and the good guys get to declare victory.

b. Stated position.

The responses of the unidentified wife.

The unidentified wife objects to evaluating environment arguments based on concepts.

Her position translates as:

It is unfair to just object to massive destruction of trees. You are being judgmental.

It is unfair to object to dumping poisons of the banks of a river feeding sickly grass which replaces perfectly healthy grass which survived without poisons for the better part of a century. You are being judgmental.

It is unfair to object to heartless animal abuse aimed at beautiful animals who have value and are loved. You are being judgmental.

c. Taken in context of her record.

The wife claims to be fighting for open space where the Green Line Lechmere station stands.

Only after extended discussion do you learn that the DCR wants a new park to replace Lechmere station.

Her open space is a plaza between two massive buildings.

She neglects to mention that it is physically impossible and physically stupid to fill every square inch of a lot for a building.

So she brags as open space the plaza which simply has to be built on this lot as a matter of very minimal common sense.

Looks at what this woman brags about as creation of open space, the nonsense put out by her husband calling for creation of new open space is that much more outrageous.

4. Summary.

“Reprehensible” to quote the judge.

5. Name applied to con game.

I very strongly hesitate to quote terms used by the Cambridge Pols because the biggest part of the lies they toss to well meaning victims comes through fake terms they use to describe each outrage.

The fake terms routinely sound so good and are such big lies.

The name used for this outrage is: “Cambridge Climate Congress.”

Action in Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.
2. Matters pending, new action.


1. Introductory.

This report updates the situation on Malvina Monteiro, et al. v. City of Cambridge et al., Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action 2001-02737 (simplifying citation for sake of clarity).

In this case, judge and jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had destroyed the life of a black woman who was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The key judge’s decision may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. One word summarizes her analysis: “reprehensible.”

The award currently exceeds $5 million, about $1.1 million damages, $3.5 million penal damages and $.5 million interest.

There are several matters pending in the Monteiro case. I do not have access to the papers, only to the “docket.” From the docket, I can get the title of the papers filed by the parties and commonly get the full opinions of the judge with a lot of formatting, especially paragraphing, lost.

The jury’s verdict was announced in April 2008.

After the post trial motions were filed, argued and supplemental filings filed, it took something like nine months before the judge issued her EXTREMELY WELL WRITTEN decision on the various matters. Clearly, she takes her time and does good work.

After that, the judge issued a formal judgment. This commonly is the end of a case unless it is appealed.

2. Matters pending, new action.

The current items of major significance now pending are:

a. The plaintiff’s post judgment motion to increase the interest paid the plaintiff on the damages awarded.

b. The defendant’s motion to reconsider the decision. This motion was filed shortly after a court decision came down on penal damages.

Each motion, of course, was opposed by the other side.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2009, the Court received a formal paper entitled “Plaintiff Monteiro Submission Of Supplemental Authority.”

Translated into English, it would appear that the Plaintiff’s attorney has submitted additional legal arguments in support of the Plaintiff’s position on one of the pending motions. An educated guess would be that the filing was with regard to the Defendant’s motion to reconsider.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part III)

Archie Mazmanian is the principal contributor, edited by Bob.

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.

1. Archie’s Report.

What if a MA governmental employer fails to comply with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute? (The Statute is available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/149-185.htm - download and print it out for reference. Also, refer to Parts I and II of this series.)

Section 180 of Chapter 149 provides:

“Whoever violates a provision of this chapter for which no specific penalty is provided shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.”

While Section 185 of Chapter 149 provides for certain damages to an employee under subsection (d), there is no specific penalty prescribed for an employer’s failure to comply with the notices required by subsection (g).

Whether a MA governmental employee has standing to enforce Section 180 is not clear. However, Section 2 of Chapter 149 provides:

“The attorney general shall, except as otherwise specifically provided, enforce the provisions of this chapter, and shall have all necessary powers therefor.”

Presumably the MA Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) could seek the enforcement of such a fine from a MA governmental employer under Section 180 for failure to comply with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute.

The Whistleblower Statute has been in force since early in 1994. It is not clear just how many MA government employers are in compliance with their subsection (g) requirements. Surely the AG has the authority as well as the responsibility to enforce compliance with subsection (g). Is the AG doing so?

What are the incentives for MA government employers to comply with subsection (g)? The possibility of “punishment by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars” does not seem like a realistic incentive, even assuming that the AG were to seek such fines pursuant to Section 180 of Chapter 149.

Might the public policy behind the enactment of the Whistleblower Statute serve as an incentive to comply with the requirements of subsection (g)? Or is there reason for such employers to fear the results of such compliance? MA governmental employees following this series might check with their employers to determine whether the latter are in compliance with subsection (g). Such compliance would not only afford protection to such employees with respect to their employment but would also protect the public by serving to lessen inappropriate conduct by employers that might impact the public fisc.

While the failure of a MA governmental employer to comply with subsection (g) does not deprive an employee of rights under the Whistleblower Statute, the employee may not become aware of such rights in the absence of such compliance. Thus, the employer’s failure, intentional or otherwise, to so comply may diminish the rights of an employee with respect to unlawful retaliatory action against the employee by the employer. Might this serve as a perverse incentive on the part of a MA government employer NOT to comply with subsection (g)?

[Part IV of this series will address how MA governmental employees and the public might address such non-compliance with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute.]

2. Prior reports in this series.

Part 2: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-ii.html.

Part 1: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-i.html.

Good Boston Globe Op Ed Against Department of Conservation and Recreation

Bob reports:

Eric Chivian has had published in today’s (12/27/09) Boston Globe’s on line edition (and probably hard copy as well) an op ed entitled “The folly in felling Bay State’s Forests.”

This is an intelligent analysis of the logging tendencies of the reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation. It may be found at http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/12/27/the_folly_in_felling_bay_states_forests/.

I have already posted a response concerning the Charles River and the interrelationship with the reprehensible City of Cambridge. (That judge has an excellent choice of words.)

Thanks to Archie for pointing the op ed out.

It should be noted that the Cambridge Pols are involved in a non-stop praising exercise in support of this vile entity. This is basically an example of really bad people falsely praising other really bad people with the intension that both the bad guys look good to the unaware victim.

On looking over the comments, I note a lot of other comments critical of this reprehensible bureaucracy. In particular, it would appear that the DCR is said to have lost “FSC certification” in April 2009.

These are really rotten people. There is a comment at the end about the governor’s failure to clean up the mess.

DREAMING OF A CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE CHRISTMAS

Archie Mazmanian reports:

With all the holiday songs, Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" comes to mind and I wish Gov. Deval Patrick on down might consider this variation:

"I'm dreaming of a Charles River White Geese Christmas,
Just like the ones I used to know ...."

Fulfillment of this wish would benefit generations to come. Gov. Patrick, a pardon is in order.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part II)

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.
2. Much more minimal research by Bob.

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.

The City of Cambridge website is quite extensive, with search aids providing access to various public documents, records and information. However, despite my extensive search efforts, I was unable to link to any notices required by subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute. (See Part I of this series. The Whistleblower Statute is available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/149-185.htm - download and print it out for reference.) While I did find several references to General Laws Chapter 149, I found none for its Section 185.

The neighboring Town of Arlington has posted its “Employee Handbook” on the Internet in PDF form, available by “Googling” Town of Arlington Whistle Blower Policy. Its Whistleblower Policy is on pages 11 and 12.

Perhaps the City of Cambridge has posts of the required subsection (g) notices on bulletin boards at its public facilities. [Note: My search of the bulletin boards on the third floor of City Hall on 12/23/09 failed to reveal such notices. There is a detailed laminated post prepared by the Office of the MA Attorney General (“AG”) relative to MA Wage and Hour Laws with reference to certain provisions of Chapter 149 but not to the Section 185 Whistleblower Statute.] It would seem helpful to not only Cambridge employees but also to its residents if such notices were readily available at its website.

While Arlington’s Whistleblower Policy may satisfy the letter of subsection (g), does it capture its spirit? (I should point out that Arlington’s Whistleblower Policy, which has long been in place, is much more detailed than the much later Town of Brookline steps to comply with subsection (g) referenced in Part I.) Here are some thoughts on Arlington’s Policy in considering what information should subsection (g) notices contain to inform “employees of their protection and obligations under [the Whistleblower Statute]”:

1. While reference is made to “retaliatory action” against an employee, the definition of that term is not included. Subsection (a)(5) of the Whistleblower Statute defines this as: “ … the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.” It would seem important that employees be aware of this definition.

2. While the Policy states: “Employees aggrieved by a violation of this law may institute civil action in the Superior Court in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 149, Section 185(d)”, subsection (d) provides that such an action may be brought within two (2) years of an alleged violation, that a jury trial can be claimed, and that broad remedies are available for such an alleged violation, including treble damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. It would seem important that employees be aware of this.

3. The Policy fails to disclose the circumstances described in subsection (e)(1) to the effect that if a court finds the action taken by the employee “was without basis in law or in fact, the court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs to the employer.” Nor does it disclose the circumstances in subsection (e)(2) under which attorneys’ fees may not be assessed (but presumably court costs could). It would seem important that employees be aware of these provisions.

4. The Policy includes this requirement: “The employee must, by written notice, bring the activity, policy or practice in question to the attention of the persons designated by the Town to receive such notice unless [certain listed exceptions are applicable].” It would appear that this is intended to reflect subsection (c) of the Whistleblower Statute. However, paragraph (1) of subsection (c) seems to be limited to “an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body” of an alleged violation; that such a disclosure to a public body would not afford an employee with protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1), unless the employee first brings the matter “to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.” [Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) sets forth exceptions to paragraph (1).] The term “public body” is defined in subsection (a)(3) of the Whistleblower Statute with much specificity. But subsection (b)(1) of the Whistleblower Statute also applies to disclosures, actual or threatened, by an employee other than to a “public body” that would entitle an employee to protection against “retaliatory action” presumably without the need for the written notice required by subsection (c)(1) regarding disclosure to a “public body.” For example, the definition of a “public body” does not include newspapers and other media (including TV and the Internet).

My comments on the Arlington Whistleblower Policy are not intended to be critical of the Town of Arlington, which based upon my research has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute much more so, and much earlier, than most of MA’s 350 cities and towns. Rather, my interest is in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of subsection (g). Perhaps the MA AG should be providing assistance to MA governmental employers in its monitoring of such employers’ compliance with subsection (g) to ensure that their notices satisfy its requirements. (See Part I concerning the role of the AG with the Whistleblower Statute.)

[Part III of this series will address the consequences to a MA governmental employer if it fails to comply with subsection (g).]

2. Much more minimal research by Bob.

I emailed HR at Cambridge and was referred to the laminated poster on the third floor of Cambridge City Hall which Archie describes in his third paragraph above.