Melrose Cares: Open Community Dialogue




Click here to report offensive or inappropriate posts.



Alderman & City Politics
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Alderman against being Informed

Sounded as if one alderman voted against the motion at the meeting the other night to have documents available for the board. Was it Margolis who voted against it?

Re: Alderman against being Informed

Oh you mean Crocodile Tears, Ms. "I just love the Peacocks at Pine Banks so you should give me GIC for life"?

Re: Alderman against being Informed

Jul 31, 2015 - 12:08PM
Re: Attempted Cover Up of Federal Investigation

Quote: Correction
My understanding is the $24,000 plus in legal bills is for just one reporting cycle. The actual bill for this is going to end up being a whole lot more than that. The SC will no doubt attempt to convince us that this amount is not solely expenses for just the Federal matter (it probably isn't - it also probably includes expenses in dealing with the open meeting law violations), but if you're expecting the SC to provide an accounting of the actual expenses in dealing with the Federal matter, you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Not a bad deal for the lawyers - first, give really crappy legal advice, then rake in the fees for defending the results of your crappy legal advice.

So what do they call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? A good start.


This is right at the heart of the dysfunction in Melrose. From the start of this mayor's term he has surrounded himself only with those who tell him what he wants to hear. He has legal counsel that has provided truly wrong "guidance" over many issues. Same with School Committee, who hired the attorney that the Boston Schools had fired, and has kept this one in place all this time, despite many hundreds of thousands of dollars in "settlements" over the past 13 years for highly questionable cases. The taxpayers are largely kept in the dark on all of it, on the grounds (mostly specious) of "Personnel" or "Student Confidentiality" though anyone with half a brain can see that a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with personnel or students are being concealed as well. It's clear after reading the Secretary of State's recent ruling on the illegal "redactions" of the School Committee and Superintendent Taymore (done in total contempt of the laws they know only too well) that these officials are willing to risk everything (including many taxpayer dollars) in order to protect themselves, regardless of whether it's legal or not, and more importantly that they have employed their fleet of attorneys to shore up their specious claims. This means that they get to double-dip: get paid for giving (bad) advice and then get paid again for defending the bad actions, which certainly works for them and most certainly hurts every taxpayer in Melrose.

Here's an idea: someone with a bit of know-how (or better yet, one of those (spineless wonders) on the BOA who are currently or have been city solicitors themselves) could research the possibility of filing legal malpractice against those attorneys who have given overtly wrong (and even illegal) "advice" to any of the city's boards leading to findings against the city.

Re: Alderman against being Informed

Amused
Sounded as if one alderman voted against the motion at the meeting the other night to have documents available for the board. Was it Margolis who voted against it?


She has got to go....if she loses this time, she will not be eligible for Health Insurance for Life paid by Melrose taxpayers. If she wins, we will all be on the hook for her family's GIC forever.....:BS artist..when she voted to authorize the Override, she gave some BS about the "sacredness of the Vote"....Pray she loses and do not vote for her or the OVERRIDE !

Re: Alderman against being Informed

In order for MBMM to be voted out there has to be an effective candidate running against her.

Re: Alderman against being Informed

Incompetent Legal Counsel in Melrose
Here's an idea: someone with a bit of know-how (or better yet, one of those (spineless wonders) on the BOA who are currently or have been city solicitors themselves) could research the possibility of filing legal malpractice against those attorneys who have given overtly wrong (and even illegal) "advice" to any of the city's boards leading to findings against the city.

Do you really believe a lawyer or judge would call out another member of the club?

Re: Alderman against being Informed

Amused
Incompetent Legal Counsel in Melrose
Here's an idea: someone with a bit of know-how (or better yet, one of those (spineless wonders) on the BOA who are currently or have been city solicitors themselves) could research the possibility of filing legal malpractice against those attorneys who have given overtly wrong (and even illegal) "advice" to any of the city's boards leading to findings against the city.

Do you really believe a lawyer or judge would call out another member of the club?


Actually yes, but only when (not if) the rest all starts hitting the fan and everyone starts running for cover or trying to appear like they were the "ethical" ones who actually care about their oath of office. It is inevitable. There are just too many smelly rat issues that are already oozing out all over the place. The tipping point could occur any day now. The divisiveness of this ridiculous override thing will only contribute to the mess because now there is an insistence on some actual scrutiny, the one thing this administration fights even harder than it does when either the mayor or super want a big raise. Inevitable. Let's see who the "medals of courage" go to when the finger-pointing begins. Everyone know already who our real fighters are and have been, but just watch as the rats start scurrying!