Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Orders to review Cambridge City Manager’s contract and to replace retiring Cambridge City Clerk Placed on File

We had a disagreement with the Cambridge Chronicle on the handling of one of the three orders considered by the Cambridge City Council concerning the employment situation of the Cambridge City Manager and the replacement of the retiring Cambridge City Clerk.

My resolution of the employment situation is to fire the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro and hire the retiring Cambridge City Clerk to act as acting Cambridge City Manager pending international search for a new City Manager.

The third motion, which passed, appointed Donna Lopez, City Clerk Drury’s current number 2 person as Interim City Clerk because of the anticipated late February retirement and to empower the two to set up an orderly transition.

Two motions (1) to establish procedures with regard to the City Manager’s expiring contract and (2) with regard to establishing procedures to replace the City Clerk were initiated by Cambridge City Councilor Kelley and were delayed to last Monday’s meeting (2/6/12) by Councilor Davis under her powers under the city charter.

Kelley was out of state on Monday and no other councilor brought up the orders. The two orders, in accordance with the Charter provision, were automatically placed on file.

The Monteiro decision concerned the City Manager’s firing of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. Very strong communications were written by a panel of the Appeals Court and by the Superior Court trial judge, plus there was an award of $3.5 million PENAL damages by the jury in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The judicial comments clearly established grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

Response to Sea Island Defense

1. Response to Sea Island Defense.
2. Your Editor.

1. Response to Sea Island Defense.

Dear Mr. La Trémouille,

Thank you ever so much for picking our concerns up on your blog. I am the retired Altamaha Riverkeeper®, well at least almost retired. Having said that, if you care about our wildlife and natural resources you can never totally retire. Before I became the Altamaha Riverkeeper® I worked as a blue crab commercial fisherman on the coast of Georgia for almost 25 years until we formed the Altamaha Riverkeeper®, Inc. (ARK) in 1999. We formed the ARK because the State of Georgia had lost site of what our natural resources mean to us as a people. Without going into a long writing spell you can just about figure the rest out for yourself. Just wanted you to know a little bit about us and how much we appreciate your assistance.

Again, thank you very much,

James Holland

To learn more about the Altamaha Riverkeeper® go on their web site at
To learn more about me and what I care for go on my web site

2. Your Editor.

The parallels between the two situations are striking, except that our enemies have very bad records both on the Charles and in the not too far away Alewife reservation where they indulged in large scale environmental destruction and mass animal killing for "flood storage" the project could not deliver and which could be achieved across the street under a parking lot.

The non profit in that situation was a fake group which fits patterns of fake groups which are associated with Cambridge.

And thank you for friending the Charles River White Geese.

Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?
2. Editor’s Reply.

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

A good friend posted the following question on facebook in response to our partial posting of the funders of the Charles River “Conservancy.”


Robert, I am not clear what this posting is about! Plz clarify in simple terms. The White Geese at the Charles R extremely important 2 me.--thank u Robert!

2. Editor’s Reply.

This posting is a direct response to the posting concerning Sea World below.

The Sea World destruction very closely fits the attacks on the Charles River.

There are a lot of “non profits” whose behavior is destructive.

Some, like the Charles River “Conservancy” are blatant falsehoods. This group is belligerently destructive of the environment. There is a very real problem with groups claiming to be holier than thou who really are not.

The very big problem is their fooling well meaning people into hurting the cause they claim to stand for.

Like so many activists in Cambridge, it is impossible to tell the difference, at face value, from the knaves and those who have been fooled.

One way to try to do so is follow the money.

The good guys will run away from groups running false colors. The bad guys will stay there.

Another interesting point in the funders are the educational institutions which benefit greatly and have been quite active in environmental destruction on the Charles River. These institutions very consistently lie to their students about their environmental destructiveness. Their false colors are a very major factor in fooling well meaning people into destroying the environment.