This Can't Be Good!

The global newswire Reuters reported yesterday that the British firm National Grid (the company now owning Mass Electric) will be purchasing Keyspan, formerly known as Boston Gas, for about $7.3 billion.

Is it us or are we just selling out the country? How can this be good for the region to have a British company owning both electrical and natural gas utilities? And what if they decide to sell it to Arab nationals that don't have the best interests of this country in mind?

This can't be good.

"Strong" Arm Tactics

It was interesting to read the letter to the editor from Ken Strong in the Leader Herald and the Advocate taking the Camerario sisters to task for defending their father, Jim Camerario, who is one of the members of the Housing Authority that Mayor Hanlon is trying to remove. A real class act was Mr. Strong's posting, referring to the Camerario letter as a "phony tear jerker."

Let's take a look at what's phony. Mr. Strong's diatribe attacking these women for defending their father and trying to minimize their pride in what he means to them in their lives, while at the same time failing to reveal the real purpose of his own letter, is what is phony. Mr. Strong failed to mention in his letter -- and the two newspapers who printed it failed to add the caveat -- that Mr. Strong is looking to take what he considers to be his rightful place on the Housing Authority after Mayor Hanlon appointed him to a Board that had no vacancies to fill. Mr. Hanlon's right to remove certain members of the Housing Authority, and replace them with Mr. Strong and another political supporter, is currently under review as we wait for Mr. Hanlon to make public a Supreme Court ruling that claims he can remove these members without cause, while State law clearly states that he cannot.

Mr. Strong's letter was childish and petty, attacking two women whose only wish was to defend their father and point out that Mr. Hanlon's claim that he "doesn't know" Mr. Camerario is a flat out falsehood. Mr. Strong showed himself, in this letter, to be disingenuous and small-minded. Let's hope he's not representative of others that Mr. Hanlon may be choosing to serve the city.

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.

Why Don't We Just Give Them Our House Keys?

Everett, as a host community to Distrigas and Excelon, has a vested interest in port security along the Eastern seaboard, and this story hits just a little too close to home. The news coming out of Washington in the last few days is not only disturbing, but completely disconnected to this country's hopes and fears in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.

Last week, Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates bought the port management company, London- based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which held the rights to the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates.

Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff is right on board with the sale. The Boston Globe reported that "Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in ''certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics, saying that information is classified."

Specifics surrounding our security are classified? Let us get this straight: A United Arab Emirates owned firm has bought the shipping management rights to 5 major ports on the Eastern seaboard and one on the gulf, and Homeland Security is okay with this. What? While this country is currently as much an "ally" as an Arab country could be, the Emiratis are essentially minorities in their own country. A quick review of the population statistics of this country reveal that Emiratis make up less than 20% of their country, not to mention the fact that the United Arab Emirates, a country in the Persian Gulf, has had a front row seat to a very unpopular war in the region, as both Iraq and Iran share the Gulf waters with the UAE. While the UAE isn't exactly a hotbed of Muslim fanaticism, who is to say that that won't change? This is a region in which people have rioted and killed over cartoons. Did we mention that two of its nationals helped hijack the jets on September 11, killing thousands of people. And specifics surrounding our security are classified?

Are they kidding? Why don't we just give them our house keys?

This is supposed to be a government for the people, and by the people. Do you get the sense that in the quest for oil and wealth, we're really just collateral damage should the unthinkable happen again? Call your Congressional representatives today - don't wait.

Our population statistics came from this site:
http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcuae.htm

More Problems for Hanlon

The fuss surrounding Mayor Hanlon's attempt to force out two members of the Everett Housing Authority Board could now cause problems for him with another Board whose members were removed by Mr. Hanlon. The Mayor also removed members of the Planning Board in the weeks since taking office. There's only one little problem -- the city ordinances. This is what we found:

Section 2-192. Removal of members; filling vacancies. Any member of the planning board may be removed for cause, after a public hearing, by the mayor, with the approval of the city council. A vacancy occurring otherwise than by expiration of term shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as in the case of an original appointment. (Rev. Ords. 1976, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, § 57)

It seems pretty cut and dried that there should have been a public hearing to establish "cause," - and you can bet that "I don't know them and I don't trust them," will NOT be a good enough excuse. The very Nixonian response by Mayor Hanlon to an alderman's request for an explanation regarding the attempt to remove two members of the EHA didn't wash well with many in the city. Didn't know them? How can you say you don't trust someone that you don't even know? And how truthful is the Mayor being when he claims he "doesn't know them"? According to the family of one of the Housing Authority members, Mr. Hanlon is being disingenuous in his claims that he doesn't know at least one member -- Mr. James Camerario. A letter to the editor in today's Leader Herald describes a relationship between the Mayor and Mr. Camerario and his family that contradicts the Mayor's claim that he doesn't know Mr. Camerario, and it certainly doesn't describe a relationship of distrust. Given the described history, what would possess Mr. Hanlon to get up and make such a statement? His drive to remove these members from the Housing Authority is reminiscent of Nixon's Enemies List and the paranoia that accompanied it. The big question . . . is it Mr. Hanlon's paranoia or the paranoia of someone who has a great deal of influence over what Mr. Hanlon does.

Mr. Hanlon has troubles. He's not getting good advice, and his city solicitor is not doing his homework. The Mayor is listening to people who do not have his or the city's best interests at heart.

The start of something better? We're waiting.

Affirmative Action for Older Cops--and Other Nonsense

Just when we thought we had seen everything....along comes the Boston Sunday Globe's weekly North section with an article about Chief Mazzie, and his contract extension.

We recognize that the mayor is new and all, but you have to wonder what Mr. Hanlon was thinking when he responded to Katheleen Conti's questions concerning the chief and the contract. In the article, Mr. Hanlon insists that "he doesn't have a problem with Mazzie's performance during his three-year tenure as chief of the 93-officer department." If that's the case - then what is Mr. Hanlon's problem? When Ms. Conti questioned Mr. Hanlon about his "reservations," Mr. Hanlon responded, "He's very young." "There are older guys in the force who are saying, "We'll never be police chief now." What? Are we really going to start an affirmative action program for ....older police officers? Talk about actionable! Are we going to discriminate against the Chief....because of his age?

You have to give Chief Mazzie credit for his class and professionalism. When questioned by Ms. Conti on what surely had to be a sore subject, Chief Mazzie responded with customary grace, refusing to comment on his temporary status, and pointing out the strengths of the department despite "a tough budget."

Another area in which Mr. Hanlon wades into trouble is with his statement, "I want [a department] with a good morale, that can work together, that all the men can work together." So, Mr. Hanlon...what about the women on the department? Given that you claim that you "haven't really investigated the Police Department...and don't want to...." can it be that you're not aware that there are women working there, too? Luckily for Everett, Board of Aldermen President Frank Nuzzo managed to shine with a number of well-thought out statements, keying in on the Chief's "hands-on approach" and his activities with the youth in the city. Lowell Police Superintendent, Edward F. Davis, president of the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association also supported Chief Mazzie, stressing the importance of stability.

Although Mr. Hanlon stressed that there was "nothing behind" his decisionmaking on the Chief...the Globe article makes mention of the drug bust at the bar owned by former Alderman and Hanlon supporter, Michael Marchese. What's odd is Mr. Hanlon's intention to create a "personnel committee...not the city, but some of my supporters." "They have no ax to grind." Really? Michael Marchese would appear to be a supporter with an ax to grind. But perhaps Marchese isn't a member of this "supporter advisory team"? We don't know, because the Mayor refuses to identify these people.

So to recap: Mr. Hanlon will have a personnel committee, made up of - not human resource professionals to make this important personnel decision -but political supporters. Come again? Political supporters will be making decisions on the police chief, a taxpayer funded position? And you don't want to reveal their names....because you want to protect them from phonecalls? As taxpayers....don't we want to know who will be making these decisions with taxpayer funds? Earth to Mr. Hanlon. You promised during your campaign that your decisions would never be political....so try explaining this one to the taxpayers. It's either affirmative action for older cops or it's political. It's either age discrimination or you're taking care of one of the boys.

Who's The Mayor?

We all thought that John Hanlon won the mayor's race last November. Those of us who went to the polls had to choose between John Hanlon and David Ragucci. The ballot did not contain the name of Fred Foresteire...yet somehow, it looks as if he's running the city.

Two members of the Everett Housing Authority recently received letters from the Hanlon Administration, thanking them for services that would no longer be required. Unfortunately for Mr. Hanlon, he wasn't aware that a court ruling involving the city of Boston prohibits mayors from terminating housing authority appointees before their respective terms end, in this case - 2008 and 2009. Also unfortunate for Mr. Hanlon was the premature swearing in of his own appointee, who surely had to be embarrassed when he showed up at the next EHA meeting.

So why would Mr. Hanlon put himself out on a limb like this? Could it be because these two members of the Everett Housing Authority voted against Fred Foresteire's son over a personnel issue? Perhaps a new board will give Fred what he wants - his kid's job back, despite the rulings of two arbitrators against him.

But the story doesn't end there, as we read in yesterday's Advocate "commentary." Perhaps you noticed that the style of the "commentary" was . . . . familiar; like "John Cook Dowd" familiar. It scolds three Housing Authority members for intending to fulfill their terms on the Board, reasoning that Mr. Hanlon should be allowed to replace them due to his 247 vote "mandate" for change. The Advocate also goes on to question Joe Guliano's union credentials and the ages of Mrs. Keane, the mother of newly elected Common Council member James Keane, as well as the age of Mr. Cammererio.

Apart from the fact that the law is not on Mr. Hanlon's side, it's more than a little disingenuous to point out the future ages of Mrs. Keane and Mr. Cammererio at the end of their respective appointments, when in fact, Mr. Hanlon's appointments aren't exactly spring chickens. Mr. Strong will turn 80 this year and will be 85 at the end of his five year appointment; Mrs. Hart will be 79 at the end of her appointment. For this administration to suddenly turn "ageist" is to ignore the very real ages of these appointees, not to mention City Solicitor John Kryzovic, and the two men recently appointed to head up the building department...of 83 and 75, as well as Mr. Hanlon himself, who is now 70 years old.

This is what our government has come to, friends. Mr. Foresteire is in the driving seat, and Mr. Hanlon is merely along for the ride.