BOA decides upon its new member tonight. It will be interesting to see votes/rationales. The meeting packet with public comments is an interesting read.
You just can't help yourself, can you? Is your middle name Ball? You can't simply advocate for your choice for the position. You have to trash someone else in the process. You must fit right in with all the other mean girls. Grow up.
"I want also to offer a brief note on Gerry Mroz, who I understand is a candidate for the same
position as Eugenia.
While I respect Gerry's tireless work advocating for his beliefs in the city, I believe that his
past behavior toward one of the members of the Commission on Women should rule him out
of a position of public power.
When Maureen Burnham came before your body to be considered and confirmed, she was
confronted by Gerry, who eventually chose to pursue her down the corridor of City Hall,
loudly exclaiming that she was "just another rich, white lawyer." Maureen felt intimidated and
At the time, the Commission spoke to Alderman Zwirko about the incident, and I understand
he spoke to Gerry to indicate that this was not acceptable. We have had no trouble since;
nevertheless, I do not think this indicates an appropriate mindset for the position of Alderman.
I appreciate your attention, both to this and my recommendation of Eugenia Gibbons.
Shameful, disgraceful, and frankly illegal conduct on the part of JB and the BOA, which should never have published such unmitigated libel. They should all be held accountable. Another dark and disgraceful moment for Melrose allowing and enabling this kind of Mean Girls trash as if it were somehow legitimate. Shame on all of them!
JB's allegations about GM were sent as part of her public comment. Massachusetts Open Meeting Law requires agenda statements be published in the meeting packet. She questions the fitness of someone to serve on a public body because of their behavior. She should look in the mirror and research the definition of libel. She hurt her personal reputation and didn't do the Women's Commission or Eugenia Gibbons any favors.
JB's actions are despicable and she should face official actions for libeling a citizen, let alone someone who is always fighting for all the rest of us. Such unmitigated nonsense from someone obviously not playing with a full deck but certainly with a full load of malicious need for self-importance.
BOA did not have to post and should not have. All kinds of crazy things get sent to both boards, and sure, they are technically part of the public record, but there are laws protecting confidentiality of private citizens, children, staff, etc., and there are requirements when something is clearly defamatory in nature. Anyone who knows the way redactions happen all the time (to say nothing of the many cases where the officials hide things that we're SUPPOSED to know) would understand that there was certainly an appropriate way to handle this versus the obviously inappropriate way it was done. BOA should have to face some trouble, too, especially if the city's crack legal team had anything to do with that posting (would be another example of their flagrant incompetence).
not OML at all but rather Public Records Laws
And most certainly there are items that are not suitable for posting regardless of whether they are a matter of public record. Too bad the local officials are so ignorant and incompetent that they didn't head this nutjob off at the pass and prevent harm to a good citizen's name, and right before an elected position (in this case appointed) was to be filled in a public process, meaning Election Laws were probably also violated. Shame on her (big time!) and the officials who let this get posted!
She didn't hurt her personal reputation, which to my mind was already in the dumpster. She just confirmed that the general perception of her was accurate.
As for including her despicable allegations in the packet - I actually found it was quite helpful, in that it highlighted the mindset of some of those who were supporters of Eugenia Gibbons, including one of the chief mean girls, Martha Grover. Ms. Gibbons may be the nicest person on earth for all I know, but support from that bunch doomed her. The only vote she got was from Bewtra, while Mroz got two, from Forbes and Madeiros. MacMaster got the remaining seven. In that respect, I think the BofA got it right, although it would have been really interesting had Mroz been appointed. We'll see.
Once again the BOA demonstrated its collective ignorance, most not even being able to say their chosen candidate's undifficult name correctly. And they chose someone who has only rarely appeared for BOA business. He might be a nice guy, but he violated all the open meeting laws when he ran the HRC and was ignorant of so much else besides. He did exactly nothing when it came to the OCR issues.
Many of those who joined the collective mob writing in for Ms. Gibbons actually did harm her quest since many are known as the aptly named "Mean Girls" of Melrose politics, which is a shame because Ms. Gibbons seems to be a well-meaning person who could and should be involved in city issues.
Gerry Mroz should have been the choice for all the strong reasons noted by Scott Forbes and Monica Medeiros:
https://vimeo.com/259790234 @ 47:50
Scott Forbes: "I seconded the nomination for Gerry Mroz this evening. ... I'm sure everyone knows Gerry Mroz here on this board. He's at every meeting. He is not afraid to voice his opinion and he's someone who's earned my respect over the course of my term on the board. Whether I agree or disagree with him, he holds me accountable, and he holds this board accountable. He asks tough questions. He challenges each and every one of us. If we don't know the answer, he forces us to go find the answer, which in turn makes us better people. And it makes us a better board....Like I said there are times when we have conversations where we may disagree. But at the end of the day he has my respect, and he has my vote this evening.
53:00 Monica Medeiros
"...There is one person that is consistently involved with the issues that come before us and who comes to speak to us so often. And that's Gerry Mroz. He's knowledgeable about the issues. He's intelligent. He does the research. He does challenge us. And I think that that's a good thing. I would like to see him on the other side of this table. I think he could bring something very valuable to this horseshoe. ... a perspective where he is able to bring things [proactively] before us. He's someone who is involved and cares about energy and the environment. He cares about people. He cares about the city. And I think he could bring a lot to the table. Although there are so many choices,..., and I am so happy to hear so many of you say that you would like to be involved, and I hope that we can find ways for each of you to become more involved. But those are the things that lead to my vote tonight. Thank you."
and then from the packet, to contrast the vile remarks of Jessica Buster:
I’ve known Gerry since he moved to my neighborhood. His passion for the city and knowledge on a broad array of subjects is deep. To some he may appear opinionated or singular but my experience is he investigates and digs for discovery to find a variety of answers. This coupled with his vault of previous knowledge Gerry is able to boil complex issues into simple summaries. However, behind any single solution presented is a database of knowledge
and with discussion, Gerry has always been open to discovering different solutions and has the knowledge to navigate the complexities of each.
I have always enjoyed discussions with Gerry as he is able to see many sides and back them up with concrete information. He is open to varying opinions and has the ability to discuss and pull threads from complementary subjects offering a fuller picture from which to form an opinion.
Gerry’s passion and ability to find information would be a valuable addition to the Board. He is a caring and generous neighbor whom I feel has the experience to help maintain the ethics of the city I love and feel proud to be a community member of. I trust Gerry to be and outstanding Member of the Board of Alderman.
I know this choice is not an easy one but know Gerry would be an excellent candidate for the position.
Thank you kindly,
Diane Astle Bagley
I am writing to again voice my support for Gerry Mroz to be appointed as
my interim Ward 5 alderman. I attended the appropriations meeting this past
Monday and was able to hear from all of the candidates. While I was
pleasantly surprised by credentials of some of the candidates, only Gerry
would have the knowledge and ability to step right into the position. I have
known him and his wife for over 10 years. He has always made a point of
knowing his neighbors and helping out any of us with any issue. I have
personally had numerous discussions about the schools and and the functions
of city government with Gerry. I realize that many if not all of the board
members have had to "deal with" him speaking out meetings on a variety of
subjects over the years. I totally understand that he can be nothing short of
a pain in the ass when he is trying to make a point. I have seen him in
action! :) But I think it would be a mistake to not make use of his
knowledge while we have the chance. He is not in this for personal gain or to
add it to his resume. He has already proven that he has the time and the
talent to represent this ward as it deserves.
Now having made my case for Gerry Mroz, I would like to also state my
second choice would be for Eugenia Gibbons. She was articulate, she was
poised and she was succinct. I like that she is a relative newcomer to the
city and her education is most impressive. I am a big supporter of the high
school and love the fact that her husband is a teacher. As our ward is by far
the most diverse in the city I think it would be a great message to appoint
an african american woman. We are "One City Open to All" and this is
especially true of Ward 5.
I just learned that my neighbor, Gerry Mroz, has entered his name for consideration as a
candidate to fill the current vacancy on the Board of Aldermen.
As a resident at 80 Mt Vernon Street, Melrose, since 1994, I believe Mr Mroz would make an
excellent member of the Board. I’ve known Gerry for over a dozen years and find him to have
the qualities I look for in people in public service: intelligence, perceptiveness, inquisitive,
balanced, fair, articulate, patient, even tempered, hard working, committed to our community
I highly endorse his consideration for this opening.
G Drake Jacobs, AIA
Dear Board of Aldermen,
I would like to encourage you to select Gerry Mroz to represent Ward 5 for
this interim period until the next election when the selection process goes
back to the constituents.
I have observed Gerry for many years and have been duly impressed with:
1) His depth of understanding of the issues (that extends far beyond his
testimonies at Public Comment), on all topics that pertain to the
socio-economic well-being of Melrose,
2) His mastery of the legal and regulatory principles which restrict, enable,
and guide governmental bodies in Melrose,
3) His willingness to share his knowledge and wisdom in all matters, and the
ease with which he can converse with anyone on any topic in an informed way
and bring clarity to complexity in the his articulation of the core issues,
4) His willingness to sacrifice his own needs in order to lend a helping hand
to families throughout Melrose (as Efthalia Kaynor so eloquently spoke to at
the last meeting of the Board),
5) And his tireless advocacy for Melrose, not only locally but also at the
state and federal level where he has earned the respect of people everywhere
he goes from DESE (state agency that has engaged him repeatedly in analysis
of educational matters) to congressional representatives and senators
(federal) whose doors are open to him.
Although we elect the non-at-large Aldermen by ward so that ward-specific
interests will have a voice in Board deliberations, the representatives of
these Wards can have a profound impact on the lives of all Melrosians, since
their purview is the city as a whole. For this reason it makes a tremendous
difference to all of us which candidate you choose to fill the vacancy in the
months ahead. I know that you will not find a more dedicated, ethical, and
responsible candidate than Gerry Mroz and that he will be an effective voice
for the residents of Ward 5.
George C. Kaynor
To: Melrose Board of Aldermen
As a former Melrose elected official I appreciate the challenge you face in
choosing a Ward 5 representative from a panel of so many caring citizens
who've come forward. I am writing in support of the candidacy of Gerry Mroz.
The depth and breadth of Gerry's knowledge and capacity to research literally
any topic is staggering, as was in evidence on February 26 when Alderman
Zwirko offered an impromptu question to Mr. Mroz regarding the reconstruction
of the Lincoln School; Gerry's immediate recall and nuanced understanding of
vast statistics and facts was in evidence with his instantaneous and
thoughtful reply. Mr. Mroz has been working for the greater good of our
community on many fronts for all of his many years here. He has also been
working tirelessly behind the scenes to help people throughout our community,
often to his own detriment, simply because he cares so very much. His
generosity and kindness are unparalleled, in my family's direct experience.
On the state and federal levels--in the State House and in both houses of the
United States Congress, Mr. Mroz is welcomed every year with open offices and
a wide forum because his input is always so carefully researched and deemed
to be of high value. It would be a great thing if Melrose extended this same
welcome. Having Gerry work with the Board of Aldermen to evaluate and manage
the complex array of issues in its purview would be a huge advantage because
his input is always directed towards the greater good and based in solid
research. Please consider this candidate with due seriousness. He will
continue to bring immeasurable value to our community regardless, but he
could be a huge asset as a member of the Board of Aldermen.
Thank you kindly,
Agree that Gerry is the only one of the candidates (many "feel-good" types listed and one chosen) who has been delivering the goods for many years already and obviously would have been chosen if Melrose had more representatives with actual integrity and common sense. Good for Forbes and Medeiros! And good for all those who wrote in with strong supporting letters.
With regard to the vile JB, the Women's Commission and Zwirko owe some explanations since they were referenced in support on this misadventure into Defamation and Election Law Violations. If indeed those officials sanctioned any of this, there should be strong condemnation and corrective consequences. If they did not sanction any of it, then they need to step up and make sure that's very strongly on record and issue corrective consequences to this rogue, malicious and totally irresponsible individual.
Jessica Buster needs to resign from The Women's Commission. She also needs to make a public apology. Liz DeSelm was forced to ask for forgiveness after publicly trashing the MPS teachers at a SC meeting. The possibility of Election Law Violations is an interesting question? MB, the MCW member cited is a lawyer and should be asked to respond.
The Chair of The Women's Commission, Lata Williams is a lawyer and the Vice Chair, Kristina Pechulis is also a lawyer. What say they?
"libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages."
"slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications."
"defamation n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error."
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment."
I find it difficult to believe that Gerry uttered a sentence that short.
Yeah, so, Clarence old boy, Gerry wasn't a "public figure," while Jessica was and is. Her remarks were libelous and there is a question of liability since there is no question that real harm was done, and in the final phase when the board was voting in an elected representative to boot. Both the BOA and Women's Commission have a problem on their hands, and of course the vile and foolish Ms. B does most of all. It's all so MeToo run amuck.
Unless the alleged remarks made by him are proven to be true. If so, no libel/slander/defamation.
In any case, though, that kind of character assassination is typical of the tactics used by the Melrose Mean Girl Brigade. That bunch is truly disgusting. Imagine waking up every morning and having to look at one of those harpies? Makes my skin crawl.
So who did they choose?
If you go to the Meeting Potal agenda packet, all statements of interest and resumes are detailed. I read that MacMaster's family has lived in Melrose for 12 years. His statement lists a long history of volunteering here. His resume includes a very impressive work history and many academic and professional awards.
Outside of GM's circle of crazy people (who dominate the garbage spewed on Melrose Messages) It's a very common belief in Melrose (from sane people) that Gerry has some serious OCD and self control issues. Based on his SC voting results it should have been evident to the 2 alderman that supported him that he had zero chance in a general election. Lets hope the Republican slaughter in the next Alderman's race hands the same fate to Monica and Scott that it handed to Conn in the last election.
The previous poster sums up the viciousness of the Melrose Mean Girls. This is the sort that would rather Melrose be ruled entirely by "angels" in Margaret's deranged head, or FreeFoodMorty, or NoShow Frank, or MeTooJen, or BobShawsCartBoiselle. And how does JohnDoNothingT manage to escape the wrath of that poster when he's a lifelong Repug? "sane people" my arse! Pure unadulterated viciousness!
Melrose Mean Girls are the ones that voted to keep CT on for 3 more years. Most of the SC that voted for her has left.
Add to the previous remark that most of those on that commission have in one way or another (word, deed, campaign contribution...) indicated their support for some if not all of the school officials (committee and superintendent/administration), which speaks volumes all by itself. Only the chair has ever come out strongly against the superintendent and school committee for truly heinous acts, policies, and statements. JB can be found on social media attesting obsequiously to the "good intentions" of the very ones (superintendent/school committee) found guilty in comprehensive ways by the federal Office of Civil Rights of violating children's basic rights and creating a "racially hostile environment." JB is no freedom fighter, just an angry and immature person who wants as much attention as she can get, even if it means throwing unfair claims around harming the reputation of others, especially they happen to be men. If the rest of the bunch (with their law degrees and noble claims) sits there and allows this despicable action (her hearsay defamatory letter to BOA) of JB to stand and allows such a reckless and vicious individual to remain on their commission, then the very basis of their work is fundamentally phony and needs to be ended.
I agree wholeheartedly with "involved citizen." Beyond that, there is something pretty amiss with the board of aldermen that such obvious gossip and implicit smear campaign would have been allowed to appear in official meeting documents. There are all kinds of rules and laws (city, state, federal) that prevent this kind of thing. No one would have been allowed to say such things in Public Participation, and they would have been instantaneously shut down by the president (or chair of school committee) once a person's name was mentioned, even beyond the accusation (allegation of a crime). So the question then is what is wrong with both President MZ for allowing this and not taking immediate action to make sure first that it wasn't posted, but now allowing it to stand for all this time? Where is the strong statement of the president, the city solicitor, the board itself against illegally smearing citizens in the public record? That goes for the chair of the CoW also, who owes strong action in this case. Why is JB still listed as a member of the commission? It is not right, and it needs to be addressed. If not, it says that open smears on any citizen, particularly one who is critical, is now allowed in official processes, which should be of concern to all of us.
This kind of trash has been SOP for these people for years. They felt they needed to marginalize GM, and this is the kind of tactic they resort to. Recall if you will the many false charges filed against parents who complain about the schools, the way CKK was mistreated, and the way Dello Russo mistreated MM. This is right out of the Dolan playbook. We may have gotten rid of him but the cancer he caused is still there, being perpetrated by his ex-minions who remain.
Let's not forget how JLB was bullied by RD, JMcL and MBMM/GI....... Wonder if JL played along with RD and the "girls" because of how she saw JLB was treated. MBMM and GI didn't support JL's BOA name change. Then JL drools over GI and was named Appropriations Chair in return. Female leaders will not change this country, if they act just like the men and play the political game like men.
How was JLB bullied? I must have missed it. Do tell.
JLB stood strong but was indeed bullied by RD, first for a 35-minute rant/screaming session where he called to abuse her for questioning his proposed 26% raise, and then in public by him and by his thugs. She revealed the contents of this phone harassment in a BOA meeting where McLaughlin et al. (van Campen and his henchmen cooking up their fake news/false data for the ever-gullible "true Melrosians") had their hoards of RD sycophants lined up to gush about how they "knew him since he was in diapers" and deemed him Saint Doughboy, deserving of at least that 26% raise (the year before his failed override bullying & lying). She also exposed the flagrant hypocrisy of those like the HRC "leadership" (Dolan sycophants like SQG) who similarly employed bullying tactics when promoting their cackling bullying hero, the guy who viciously mocked (mocks) everyone behind their backs and labels many as "haters," his favorite go-to term (frequently employed also by Morty and also the illegit mayor GI). With dignity and composure, JLB took apart RD and SQG. She is anything but a "snowflake." She had more class and integrity than the rest of that chamber combined on that night (filled with the RD circus actors).
JLB became unhinged at the BOA meeting when she realized Dolan was going to get his raise. Once she counted to 8 "yes" votes she fabricated the whole Dolan ranting and raving phone call to try to sink his raise in a last ditch effort. Lavender's are best friends with Bob Snow. Snow was her adviser on how to kill the Mayors pay raise. What else do you need to know? Her mother Jane Lavender voted against everything and anything positive in Melrose. Her daughter simply followed in her footsteps. Only difference was the mother could take the heat in the kitchen and stayed in the position for years. JLB couldn't take the fact that her group of Melrose friends wouldn't go within 50 feet of her after her slanderous attack on Dolan...so she cut bait and quit. No class in lying and no courage in quitting. Nice try though.
Great posting JMcL. Viciousness personified!
Melrose Free Press. 1/31/13
To the editor:
For some, the highlight of the Appropriations Committee meeting Monday evening must have been the courageous comments by Aldermen Jaclyn Lavender Bird about the process and what went on behind the scenes.
Beginning with the comment that she felt “Like a skunk at a lawn party” for voting against the order. She made these points:
1) Despite all the personal testimony about the mayor, it was not a personal issue but a personnel issue.
2) It is not the job of the Board of Aldermen to give a 25 percent raise to an elected incumbent with more than two years left in his term. It is not the right process.
3) Other ways to address the issue could be small cost-of-living increases over the next two years with a larger increase for the position which would go into effect in January 2016 following the next election.
Then came some disturbing comments about the mayor and John McLaughlin’s behind the scenes pressure. She was told by the mayor on Dec. 14 that he would seek a 26 percent pay increase and replied it was higher than she expected and could not support it as setting a bad precedent.
His response was, “Now that McClaughlin is on this, you won’t have a choice.” On Jan. 11, after many calls from McClaughlin, she told him it was nothing against the mayor, to which McLaughlin said if she did not agree, he would have to get 300 people to the hearing.
She explained that she voted based on what she thinks is right whether that decision is popular or not. Two minutes later the mayor called and she reiterated her position and endured “35 minutes of the mayor screaming".
Thank you, Truthsayer, for posting the truth and countering the disgusting, hateful lies about JLB by "Real Truth" (not!) and "MM Memes."
There is already plentiful evidence of the lack of courage or integrity of KL-G, JL, MB, who dare to present their rationale for votes to date as if they had actually done due diligence on the issues when it's obvious that they have not, that instead they are promoting the most superficial and in some cases entirely false suppositions. For any of them to have promoted GI, for example, as "highly knowledgeable" about education is ludicrous. GI demonstrates her staggering ignorance of factual information about even the most general education issues any time she opens her mouth. Her educational expertise is on a par with her trumpet playing (about which she also has large pretensions).... JL supposedly is all about women's issues (as in board name change), but she certainly has had no qualms about watching the chronic bullying of her female colleague, MM (who always carries herself with dignity and fights for actual issues) at numerous meetings, or even of demonstrating basic respectful conduct (as in seconding motions even if just for the purposes of discussion, as respectful boards do). KL-G has voted regressively right out of the box, and she demonstrates zero humility besides, always with a patronizing, superior air. Women's issues only matter if they are about appearances and about the fabricated issues of the Melrose fake dems, at least for this bunch. Sadly, the Good Ol' Boy Network in Melrose politics includes most of its women representatives as well, who are anything but progressive in any real way. JLB can feel proud that she stood tall next to that bunch (and by the way, she did serve for years, so trying to impugn her for having not re-upped is just bogus).
How can you get copies of the minutes from the Monday night Women's Commission meeting? Wonder if the Commissioner Lawyers even discussed the issues which started this string (JB and her public comments regarding the Ward 5 Vacancy)? The City and Women's Commission may be in violation of the OML by never posting their meeting minutes on the City Website.
They don't have to publish the minutes, but they have to have them and provide them when asked. Not every group has to post minutes, but they do need to be available to anyone who requests them.
Meanwhile, a certifiable lunatic serves on the BOA. I guess it's forgiven as just Morty being Morty.
ALL Boards and Commissions should be REQUIRED to post their minutes on line. All city business is funded by taxpayers and should be readily available! Layers of beaurcacy should not be required to access public information. Why should Melrose residents need to request copies of minutes? Where are the minutes stored? The biographies of Commissioners are not up to date on many pages. The MHRC for instance still lists Rabbi Fertig and Shawn MacMaster who finished their terms over two years ago. There are a number of WC vacancies and many Commissioners have left. So who are the Women Commissioners? Agendas are often wrong, too. The February MHRC agenda has the Cemetary Meeting listed instead. Check out other meetings and mistaken agendas are also listed as "school councils". The stupid thing about the WC Facebook notice was the need to have "a drink or two" in order to "plot and scheme". Dumb to promote the need for alcohol in order to plan future events or encourage networking. Their choice to use the words "plotting and scheming" will only contribute to negative and stereotypical views about female leaders and hurt the WC's reputation.
The Melrose Commission on Women's Facebook page today shared a link from the BBC about a female pilot who flew hundreds of missions during WWII. It struck me as inappropriate and insensitive to say that she should be celebrated even "if this one is British".