Monday, May 25, 2009

The proper action for the Cambridge City Council in Monteiro v. Cambridge

Bob reports:

The judge in Monteiro v City of Cambridge, on or about June 2, will take action that commences the appeals period in this case. The Cambridge City Council has started to position itself to evaluate whether the City Council will fund an appeal.

I have been told that the Cambridge City Council is not capable of doing what should be done on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This opinion is based on the individual limitations of the members of the Cambridge City Council.

I personally think that people who so clearly and publicly claim to stand for civil rights might actually stand for civil rights. And the Monteiro case involves the deliberate destruction of the life of a black woman, Cape Verdean, department head in response to her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Chronicle editor has done an excellent job evaluating this case as a personal matter of the City Manager.

This evaluation should feature in the decision of the Cambridge City Council on whether or not to fund an appeal.

If the Cambridge City Council does fund an appeal, the fact that this case is a personal matter with regard to the Cambridge City Manager should feature in the voters’ evaluation of the qualifications of the members of the City Council to hold office.

The very strong opinion of judge and jury is that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in clear and knowing violation of civil rights laws protecting Ms. Monteiro’s right to file a civil rights complaint. His action has been determined illegal and “reprehensible.”

The judge’s decision tears apart each and every argument of the Cambridge City Manager in court. That decision may be read on the Internet at That decision includes a shocking evaluation of the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager.

If the Monteiro decision is not appealed, the City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro is a matter which has been litigated.

The City Manager has rather strong clauses in his contract paying him a large golden parachute should he be fired. It is not unthinkable for such clauses to be found void as against public policy in the face of such a court decision.

I see nothing complicated about it.

We have nine city councilors who claim to be pro-civil rights.

We have nine city councilors who should be accepting the decision of judge and jury and voting to fire the Cambridge City Manager.