Want Some Cheese With That W(h)ine?

The Board of Aldermen met on Monday evening, December 13, and they had many questions for the Mayor concerning the finances of the City. They are certainly within their rights – indeed, it is their responsibility -- to seek out answers to what they claim are concerns of their constituents during a week when homeowners received real estate tax bills that had increased substantially over the previous year.

The meeting was a fairly even exchange of questions and answers until Alderman Carlo DeMaria took the floor – and suddenly we were watching what was tantamount to a child throwing a temper tantrum. Alderman DeMaria felt that the Mayor was pointing a finger of blame at the Board for the current fiscal restraints that the City is facing. DeMaria was reacting to a response that the Mayor had given to a question posed by Alderman Robert Van Campen concerning the use of the stabilization fund to rehire certain positions that had been laid off two years ago. Mayor Ragucci’s explanation was as follows: the employees that took the biggest hit were in the parks and playground department. The Board Of Aldermen had indicated their desire to go into the stabilization fund to bring these people back. The Mayor said that the message he received from both members of city government and the community was to bring these people back, as well as the services that had been cut at the Shute and Parlin Libraries. Alderman Van Campen seemed to take that answer at face value. Alderman DeMaria took it as a personal affront. “Sometimes I laugh at the things you say,” said DeMaria, with open contempt . . .”It seems like sometimes you throw the blame at us.” DeMaria went on to lament that members of the Board don’t receive information in a timely enough manner in which to study and vote on the issues. His battle cry for the evening, which he repeated several times, was that “we’re part time, we’re not at City Hall every day, we don’t have the same information that you [the Mayor] have.” In fairness to Alderman DeMaria, this has been the sound bite for a number of the members of the Board of Aldermen in recent weeks.

Here’s the rub – yes, technically, being an elected member of the City Council is a “part-time” position. However, when one runs for office, one takes on a very serious obligation to serve the citizens of Everett to the best of his/her ability. That includes attendance at regular meetings and joint conventions, participation in committee meetings, and constituent services. The duties are not limited to showing up at City Hall every other Monday evening. Being an effective elected official requires doing research, thinking outside the box, and not expecting to be spoon fed every scintilla of information.

What was more telling about the comments made by Alderman DeMaria, however, was that he took exception to a legitimate response given to a legitimate question. How childish is it to pitch a fit because you ask a question, but you don’t like the answer – even though the answer was based on fact.

The whining, however, was not limited to Alderman DeMaria. Ward Five Alderman Robert Van Campen also took exception to comments made by a member of the Ragucci administration, Auditor Frank Coppola, and he rose on a “point of personal privilege” to take the Auditor to task. Alderman Van Campen made reference to comments made by that Auditor questioning the motivation for the request for an audit of the School Building Commission. Mr. Coppola made the comment at the Common Council meeting on December 6, and it was reported in the local press. Van Campen expressed his dismay that a “Department Head who is appointed by this Board” would make such a statement. There was something vaguely threatening in Alderman Van Campen’s statement, but aside from that, what was more troubling was the timing of Alderman Van Campen’s public chastisement of the Auditor. Alderman Van Campen chose to rise on his “point of personal privilege” late in the meeting, after the Auditor had left the Council Chamber, where he had stood just one hour before ready to answer any questions that the Board had regarding the city’s financial situation. “I want the City Auditor to know how I feel,” claimed Van Campen, yet he waited until he could take the floor with his criticism with no chance of any face to face interaction with the Auditor. This can hardly be considered professional behavior, particularly by someone who is rumored to have loftier political ambitions.

Rounding out the guest list at Monday evening’s w(h)ine and cheese party was Ward Three Alderman Michael Marchese, who thought that the Common Council should have voted on the request for the School Building Commission audit rather than refer it to the Finance Committee, in spite of the fact that, by his own admission, the Board of Aldermen had failed, up to that point, to provide parameters for the scope of the audit. Alderman Marchese apparently feels that the Council should have accepted on blind faith the whim of the Board of Aldermen in calling for the audit. Alderman Marchese also decried the fact that the Common Council referred the piece of business to the Finance Committee knowing that the year was winding down and that a new Finance Committee would be formed after the first of the year. Perhaps it was the hope of the members of the Common Council that the Finance Committee would actually fulfill its duty and meet at some point next year and have a serious discussion of the subject matter, rather than haphazardly throwing together a piece of business that could be construed as a retaliation for the audit of the School Department that is currently being conducted by the State Auditor’s office.

Here’s the irony of the request for this audit – or any audit – it doesn’t come without a price tag attached to it. The Board of Aldermen spent the better part of two hours at this meeting decrying the real estate tax increases and questioning the close proximity the City is now at relative to the tax levy limit, but they see no problem in requesting an audit of the School Building Commission, with its attending cost to the taxpayer, without providing any concrete rationale or significant guidelines or parameters for it. This from a Board that has spent the last several weeks engaged in significant chest-pounding over the fiscal condition of the City.

It should again be emphasized here that it is the right and the responsibility of the elected members of the Board of Alderman to be the fiscal watchdogs for the citizens of Everett. However – that is not all that this meeting was about. It was also about political positioning, about grandstanding on the eve of what is shaping up to be a very “challenging” election year. The behavior of these three members of the Board as described above does a disservice to their first priority of representing the best interests of the City. Given the fiscal constraints under which cities and towns must now operate, it’s time to put aside hurt feelings and bruised egos and focus on working together as a unit to keep Everett moving forward.