Cases In Contradiction

The Everett Independent was a bundle of contradictions today. Poor Mr. Resnek; he must be torn by the ideals of his chief writer, Mr. "law and order" Augustine Parziale, and his deep-seated need to defend John Hanlon's decisionmaking. While we understand the necessity of keeping those ad revenues rolling in, it's just as important to be logical and consistent. Mr. Resnek was neither today.

Josh was initially off to a great start. In tackling the Planning Board controversy, a situation in which Mayor Hanlon appears to have improperly removed four members of the Planning Board, Mr. Resnek states that "when all is said and done, count us among those who believe in following the rules, regardless of the circumstances or the individuals involved." We applaud this and believe this to be the right and appropriate stance. Mr. Resnek then goes on to state that "if Mayor Hanlon has court rulings that say otherwise, then that's fine....if not, he should go through the proper channels to remove the members he wants to replace." We could not agree more.

Mr. Resnek loses credibility, however, when he attempts to address a similiar situation with the Everett Housing Authority, in which Mayor Hanlon attempted to illegally remove members from the EHA board. Just for context, it was the legal opinion of the state counsel advising the EHA that these members may not be removed before their terms have expired. It's the law, and it's that simple. This opinion was expressed to the City Solicitor, who then concurred after some discussion. This was pointed out to the Mayor, who still insisted that he has a Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise. Not surprisingly, it's been reported that mayor hasn't yet cited the ruling that gives him this power, despite the passing of several weeks.

Now comes Mr. Resnek, under an editorial entitled "Doing the Right Thing," calling for the EHA members to resign, out of "respect" for the mayor and for the position. Josh also states that "charges that Mayor Hanlon is trying to have three members removed because they are anti-Fred Foresteire forces is rubbish." He considers their removal to be an opportunity for Mayor Hanlon to "give his own people a chance to serve on one of the city's important boards."

So why is Josh asking for the resignation of the Everett Housing Authority board members, but insisting on "following the rules" for the removal of Planning Board members? What's the difference? Whatever happened to "count us among those who believe in following the rules?"

City ordinances create a removal protocol for the planning board, and state law creates a mandate for the housing authority, and the underlying theme is that the law is clear about removal of these members. Mayor Hanlon has failed to provide evidence of an oft mentioned Supreme Court ruling, so the burden still rests with him to produce it. While Mayor Hanlon may wish to give his own people a chance to serve - he does not, as Mr. Resnek stated, have " a right and a duty to form the kinds of boards he wants to have in this city." On the contrary - the law states that he cannot remove these members without "cause" until their terms expire or, in the case of the Planning Board, after a public hearing and a vote by the city council. Again, no where in any legal text or city ordinance is "cause" defined as "I don't know them and I don't trust them."

It's also disingenuous for Mr. Resnek to dismiss the charges of payback as "rubbish." The letter to the editor by EHA Board Chairman Joseph Guiliano connected the dots behind the decision to remove EHA members who voted against the Superintendent's son in a sexual harrassment case. A 70-page report and the decision of two separate and independent arbitrators left the EHA members with only one choice, despite a spirited and vigorous defense by union counsel. These EHA members aren't "anti-Foresteire;" they are responsible citizens doing the job they signed on to do, keeping the safety and well-being of the residents and the workers of the Everett Housing Authority their main priority. It's more than a little interesting that the Mayor would try to remove the same members who voted against the Superintendent's son when he has no real authority to do so. Why not try to remove the one member whose term is actually expiring? I think we know the answer. The dots have already been connected and despite Josh's best efforts...we know better.

The irony of Mr. Resnek calling upon the board members of the Everett Housing Authority to resign because it would be "Doing the Right Thing" isn't lost on us, either. Not once has Mr. Resnick ever suggested that the Superintendent resign, despite his indictment on stolen property charges or a state audit revealing massive overspending, gross mismangement and rank incompetence. If there is a moral imperative for the Housing Authority members to resign, when will that same moral imperative apply to the Superintendent? What's it going to take?

This is another contradiction for the Everett Independent.