Friday, January 23, 2015

Charles River: Cambridge, MA, USA Reaffirms Contempt for Civil Rights / Women’s Rights? Established City Manager appointed Civic Unity (racial issues) Committee Destroyed?

Charles River: Cambridge, MA, USA Reaffirms Contempt for Civil Rights / Women’s Rights?  Established City Manager appointed Civic Unity (racial issues) Committee Destroyed?

1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.
2. The Monteiro Outrage.
3. Lesbian,  Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.
a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?
b. Lying through omission.
4. Summary.

1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.

The biggest, most consistent lie in the City of Cambridge, MA, is the lie of omission.

2. The Monteiro Outrage.

A Lesbian Black woman on the Cambridge City Council gave a pitch last night, January 22, 2015 that Cambridge is aggressively working on the lessons of Monteiro v. Cambridge.

Naturally, it being Cambridge, MA, the most important things were the ones she did not mention.

Malvina Monteiro was the Administrator of Cambridge’s Police Review Board.  She is a Black Cape Verdian woman.

She thought she was being discriminated against by Cambridge by being a woman paid less than comparable men employed by the City of Cambridge.  She filed a civil rights complaint.  The Cambridge City Manager retaliated.  He fired her and clearly destroyed her life in retaliation for filing that Civil Rights complaint.

The civil rights jury showed their contempt for the City of Cambridge by ordering a payment of $1.1 million to Monteiro as her damages plus PENAL DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES, a percentage above the normal maximum for penal damages.

The civil rights judge reviewed the decision and Cambridge’s motions.  Her opinion exceeded 100 pages and can be summed in one word: “ reprehensible.”  She included extensive quotes of the Cambridge City Manager in support of “reprehensible.”

Cambridge appealed.  The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion.  They wrote a scholarly non “opinion” which may be summarized as finding “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”

The Cambridge City Council has a duty to supervise the Cambridge City Manager and has a duty to fire him should he practice malfeasance or misfeasance in office.  It is silly to interpret those three rulings as other than affirmations of malfeasance or misfeasance in office.

Exactly zero votes were taken to fire the Cambridge City Manager by the Cambridge City Council.

In exactly zero instances has any member of that sitting City Council acknowledged the well demonstrated contempt for the Cambridge City Manager by three carefully thought out judicial decisions.

In the election after the Appeals Court decision came down, the voters fired one Cambridge City Councilor.  This came after he expressed an opinion that destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro was “no big thing.”

A second sitting long time city councilor who was a part of that outrage, a gay black man, was fired in the next election.  Was that firing part of the  expression of disgust by the electorate?

Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy retired with honor.

3. Lesbian,  Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.

a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?

The fake neighborhood association had two members of the Cambridge City Council talk to them on Thursday, January 22.  The Lesbian, Black Female City Councillor bragged that they are working on the Monteiro case.  She is one of the city councilors who were not able to even notice the contempt of the Courts for Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.

The councillor’s big achievement that she bragged about is the creation of a “second” Civic Unity Committee to discuss government diversity (i.e. racial) matters, in addition to the Civic Unity Committee of the City Council.  She says this new subcommittee of the City Council Civic Unity Committee would consist of members of the public and will address the Monteiro matter

Trouble is that the Cambridge City Manager has a long established committee appointed by him, the Civic Unity Committee.  It has a long record of work in diversity matters, and I recall a very prominent Black resident who was very visible in the community who was a member of this City Manager created committee.

A letter to the editor was published in the Cambridge Chronicle by, I believe, two former members of the City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee.

The former members reported that their committee had attempted to review the Monteiro outrage.  They reported that the Cambridge City Solicitor’s Office, when faced with this behavior by the Cambridge City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee, had chastised the committee for failing to be team players.

I questioned the Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor whether the new subcommittee amounted to a second Civic Unity Committee or a third, counting the well established Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager whose departed members complained in the Cambridge Chronicle about their treatment when they looked into the Monteiro case.

The councilor reported that there are only two Civic Unity Committees.

The councilor stated that she is not familiar with the one that complained through its former members of the chastising of the committee by the City Solicitor’s office for failing to be team players when the committee tried to get information on Monteiro.

Interesting that a Black city councilor who has been in office for more than a decade claims to be unaware of the existence of this long time committee defending Blacks which does not seem to exist any more, after it stood up and did its duty on the Monteiro matter.

b. Lying through omission.

The councilor was bragging about this “second” Civic Unity Committee.  She did not acknowledge the existence of the long time well established Civic Unity Committee which apparently was destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager.  Destruction apparently came after the Civic Unity Committee tried to investigate the Monteiro matter, clearly within their jurisdiction.

She claimed her “second” Civil Unity Committee was a positive response to the Monteiro case.

The reasonable interpretation is that the destruction of the well established Civic Unity Committee would rather reasonably be considered a retaliation for its responsible behavior on the Monteiro matter, and that this “second” committee is yet more smoke and mirrors.

So the responsible, well established Civic Unity Committee was apparently destroyed and the Black, Lesbian, Female City Councilor is bragging about a new Civic Unity Committee as a subcommittee to the City Council’s Civic Unity Committee as a terrific improvement.

And she has been in office how long?  And she claims to be a Black activist?

Hard to call that other than lying through omission.

4. Summary.

Never say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its City Council.

They keep proving such statements wrong.