Alderman & City Politics
Start a New Topic 
1 2
Author
Comment
Four Candidates

We now have four candidates officially running for mayor. Will that be it? Or will we see more jump in? One just ****** off her base by cosponsoring the change of the name of the board of alderman. One has been an alderman for about five minutes. One is an alderman whose colleagues so badly didn’t want him to be mayor that they went back on a hundred years of precedent to remove him as president of the board. And one is a long time entrenched melrose politician. Who will it be???

Re: Four Candidates

The entrenched Melrose politician will take it. He is the only one that can reach across both sides. MM should not have changed her stance on the BOA.

The new alderwoman will run again in the future. The guy with the video has hubris. Was shunned as an appointed mayor but still running.

Re: Four Candidates

That’s one word for it.

The “entrenched politician” is by far the one who has done the most for melrose, regardless of his political base or potential gain. At least within this field, that’s the most deserving candidate.

Re: Four Candidates

Hubris
That’s one word for it.

The “entrenched politician” is by far the one who has done the most for melrose, regardless of his political base or potential gain. At least within this field, that’s the most deserving candidate.
I like MM, BOA flip flop notwithstanding but I think the entrenched guy is the best for the job. MM would be fighting all the one Melrose folks and be learning on the job which is an unwinnable combination.

The entrenched guy has the most broad based experience and can actually do the job.

Re: Four Candidates

I have to agree with that, although reluctantly. I guess he'd be the best of the lot, but really, it's a shame we can't do better.

Re: Four Candidates

The Finish Line
Hubris
That’s one word for it.

The “entrenched politician” is by far the one who has done the most for melrose, regardless of his political base or potential gain. At least within this field, that’s the most deserving candidate.
I like MM, BOA flip flop notwithstanding but I think the entrenched guy is the best for the job. MM would be fighting all the one Melrose folks and be learning on the job which is an unwinnable combination.

The entrenched guy has the most broad based experience and can actually do the job.
Couldn't agree more. Plus MZ has some serious personal issues that will disqualify him after not too long. Very little respect from anyone who knows him well personally. MB will skate along and come in fourth.

Re: Four Candidates

Serious personal issues??? I dont follow....

Re: Four Candidates

He has shown himself to be a fake and a liar. Problems with loyalty. It doesn’t go over well with people once they get past the jolly guy next-door act.

Re: Four Candidates

I dunno. I just can’t get over that embarrassing video.

So if we aren’t happy with the four, how do we get someone else to run that will do what’s needed?

Re: Four Candidates

Dunno
I dunno. I just can’t get over that embarrassing video.

So if we aren’t happy with the four, how do we get someone else to run that will do what’s needed?
Tell me about it with that video. Yeesh!

As to your question, who else do you picture running when you asking it? I feel like the current crop of candidates covers the spectrum pretty well. Manisha is the left wing, identity politics type. Monica is the right wing, reactionary politics type. Paul is the middle of the road, safest choice for the majority of Melrose. Mike splits the difference between Paul and Manisha a bit and makes sad videos.

I am betting it will come down to Paul vs Monica since they have both served the city the longest and provide differing viewpoints that resonate with a good amount of Melrose voters

They tick most of the political boxes that are out there. I am wondering who else you have in mind. No one is springing immediately to my mind.

Re: Four Candidates

Who Ya Got?
Dunno
I dunno. I just can’t get over that embarrassing video.

So if we aren’t happy with the four, how do we get someone else to run that will do what’s needed?
Tell me about it with that video. Yeesh!

As to your question, who else do you picture running when you asking it? I feel like the current crop of candidates covers the spectrum pretty well. Manisha is the left wing, identity politics type. Monica is the right wing, reactionary politics type. Paul is the middle of the road, safest choice for the majority of Melrose. Mike splits the difference between Paul and Manisha a bit and makes sad videos.

I am betting it will come down to Paul vs Monica since they have both served the city the longest and provide differing viewpoints that resonate with a good amount of Melrose voters

They tick most of the political boxes that are out there. I am wondering who else you have in mind. No one is springing immediately to my mind.
Don Conn for mayor!

Re: Four Candidates

5-1
Who Ya Got?
Dunno
I dunno. I just can’t get over that embarrassing video.

So if we aren’t happy with the four, how do we get someone else to run that will do what’s needed?
Tell me about it with that video. Yeesh!

As to your question, who else do you picture running when you asking it? I feel like the current crop of candidates covers the spectrum pretty well. Manisha is the left wing, identity politics type. Monica is the right wing, reactionary politics type. Paul is the middle of the road, safest choice for the majority of Melrose. Mike splits the difference between Paul and Manisha a bit and makes sad videos.

I am betting it will come down to Paul vs Monica since they have both served the city the longest and provide differing viewpoints that resonate with a good amount of Melrose voters

They tick most of the political boxes that are out there. I am wondering who else you have in mind. No one is springing immediately to my mind.
Don Conn for mayor!
He would be a great Mayor!

Re: Four Candidates

Why would he want to run for Mayor? He'd have to essentially give up his law practice, thanks to the provisions of the City Charter, which guarantees no actually qualified person would even consider running.

Re: Four Candidates

No Collusion and No Obstruction! Trump has been VINDICATED! Hey Democrats... Let the crying and whining begin!

Re: Four Candidates

Forget It
Why would he want to run for Mayor? He'd have to essentially give up his law practice, thanks to the provisions of the City Charter, which guarantees no actually qualified person would even consider running.
Why would you want a Mayor with 2 jobs? It is a full time job to be the mayor. I can't see why anyone would want a Mayor with a side-hustle law practice, or even worse, another full-time law practice in which they would have to have meetings (on city time) during the business day. That sounds like an unqualified mayor to me. I wish this talking point would just go away on this message board. It is so painfully misguided.

Re: Four Candidates

You still don't get it. He would have to actually close or sell his practice, rather than only taking no part in it until he was out of office again. That would leave him with nothing when he's out of office.

Yes, Mayor is a full-time job, but there are legal mechanisms in place that would allow him to "recuse" himself from his practice during his term as Mayor. The Charter prohibits that.

You are another in dire need of a civics class.

Re: Four Candidates

The charter provision is that the mayor divests themself of their business, not that they simply recuse themselves from it while in office which is asking a lot. Funny how the person who wanted this the most isn't even here anymore. He was trying to keep the playing field small for himself but now the whole city suffers.

This comes up on here frequently because those that didn't like this person as mayor, didn't like that he made it difficult for others to become mayor. Not an unreasonable thought.

Re: Four Candidates

Again & Again
The charter provision is that the mayor divests themself of their business, not that they simply recuse themselves from it while in office which is asking a lot.


That's what I said. In another community "recusal" - if that's even the right term - would be possible. In Melrose the Charter prohibits it.

Re: Four Candidates

AG
No Collusion and No Obstruction! Trump has been VINDICATED! Hey Democrats... Let the crying and whining begin!
The President of the United States is NOT a politician that's why he won in 2016. If he was a politician we would have a president being impeached at this time. I do not have to read the report because March 24, 2019 we heard the results. No collusion you have no obstruction. This report tells us that Mueller is a shirker.

Re: Four Candidates

And this is relevant to "Four Candidates" because.......?

Re: Four Candidates

Yes, Again
You still don't get it. He would have to actually close or sell his practice, rather than only taking no part in it until he was out of office again. That would leave him with nothing when he's out of office.

Yes, Mayor is a full-time job, but there are legal mechanisms in place that would allow him to "recuse" himself from his practice during his term as Mayor. The Charter prohibits that.

You are another in dire need of a civics class.
I am not the one in need of a civics class. You are.

The mayor cannot actively engage in business outside of the office during their term of office. That is spelled out in the charter. Any need to divest themselves entirely of their practice is your interpretation. It reads to me that they would just not need to engage in the practice of law for profit during their term. During the charter review debate, the city soliciter's interpretation was that it was to prevent a person for having another JOB during their term. If it was just about income, someone that owned a rental property in town couldn't serve. I don't think that is the case.

Point me to the section of the charter that says otherwise. Otherwise you are just speculating.

Re: Four Candidates

So having a law practice is not the same as having a job? Seriously? If your not engaging in the practice of law, then you don't have a law practice.

Re: Four Candidates

What?
So having a law practice is not the same as having a job? Seriously? If your not engaging in the practice of law, then you don't have a law practice.
You would not have to dissolve your practice like some have stated here .you can basically put it on hold and do the job of mayor.

Again, why would anyone want a Mayor who is working a second job as a lawyer (on city time no less)? You don't get to moonlight in this position and lawyers have to keep regular business hours anyway. Mayor is a full time job. You can't have the mayor in court or a meeting during the day for their own personal law business. It is downright strange that you would even want that. Or that you would consider a candidate who would want to do that better than the current crop of candidates.

Re: Four Candidates

Again?
You would not have to dissolve your practice like some have stated here. you can basically put it on hold and do the job of mayor.


If you put your practice on hold for four years, you don't have a practice. You'd lose all your clients.

Again?
Again, why would anyone want a Mayor who is working a second job as a lawyer (on city time no less)? You don't get to moonlight in this position and lawyers have to keep regular business hours anyway. Mayor is a full time job. You can't have the mayor in court or a meeting during the day for their own personal law business. It is downright strange that you would even want that. Or that you would consider a candidate who would want to do that better than the current crop of candidates.


You keep repeating this, but I haven't seen anyone say that Mayor is not a full time job. What is being said is that anyone with a good career is not likely to want to be Mayor if it means putting that career on hold for four years, or maybe even risking losing that career. That's why Dolan set it up the way he did - so that he would not have to face a quality candidate. And it wasn't all about the money with him either - it was about the power.

And, for the record - we shouldn't even have a Mayor. Melrose should be a town, not a city, with a town manager and town meeting. It's a much better and more representative form of government for a community this size.

Re: Four Candidates

What?
Again?
You would not have to dissolve your practice like some have stated here. you can basically put it on hold and do the job of mayor.


If you put your practice on hold for four years, you don't have a practice. You'd lose all your clients.

Again?
Again, why would anyone want a Mayor who is working a second job as a lawyer (on city time no less)? You don't get to moonlight in this position and lawyers have to keep regular business hours anyway. Mayor is a full time job. You can't have the mayor in court or a meeting during the day for their own personal law business. It is downright strange that you would even want that. Or that you would consider a candidate who would want to do that better than the current crop of candidates.


You keep repeating this, but I haven't seen anyone say that Mayor is not a full time job. What is being said is that anyone with a good career is not likely to want to be Mayor if it means putting that career on hold for four years, or maybe even risking losing that career. That's why Dolan set it up the way he did - so that he would not have to face a quality candidate. And it wasn't all about the money with him either - it was about the power.

And, for the record - we shouldn't even have a Mayor. Melrose should be a town, not a city, with a town manager and town meeting. It's a much better and more representative form of government for a community this size.
I, and I think most others, would disagree with you. I wouldn't want a Mayor (or town manager) that is also practicing law as a second job. There would bound to be conflicts with their time and the city would suffer for it. It is a good provision of the charter, and any candidate that would want to be mayor and still have a functioning law practice is NOT a good candidate for the job.

You may miss out on a candidate because they want to keep their law practice up and running but that is their choice and it would be personal to them. Melrose needs to be concerned that the mayor is working as the mayor at all expected times.

I also firmly disagree with the notion that the town form of government is best. Town meetings are onerous bothers that are a relic of the past and tamp down participation and turnout. That is why you see towns becoming cities (like Framingham recently) and never vice versa. True representative democracy is much more preferable to me. Think about the outrage on this message board when the board picked Gail as mayor. That is what the selectmen would be doing with town manager every single time. I think it is best that the population votes on the mayor at the ballot box, just like most everyone on here thought a mere year ago (and still complains about to this day).

Melrose has been a city for 119 years. I am not thinking a change is in order or there is anyone from 1899 who is itching for the old days.

Re: Four Candidates

Again?
I, and I think most others, would disagree with you. I wouldn't want a Mayor (or town manager) that is also practicing law as a second job. There would bound to be conflicts with their time and the city would suffer for it. It is a good provision of the charter, and any candidate that would want to be mayor and still have a functioning law practice is NOT a good candidate for the job.

You may miss out on a candidate because they want to keep their law practice up and running but that is their choice and it would be personal to them. Melrose needs to be concerned that the mayor is working as the mayor at all expected times.


Are you being deliberately obtuse? How many times do I have to say that I agree the Mayor's position is a full time job before you actually get it?

Again?
I also firmly disagree with the notion that the town form of government is best. Town meetings are onerous bothers that are a relic of the past and lead to tyranny of the "majority". That is why you see towns becoming cities (like Framingham recently) and never vice versa. True representative democracy is much more preferable to me. Think about the outrage on this message board when the board picked Gail as mayor. That is what the selectmen would be doing with town manager every single time. I think it is best that the population votes on the mayor at the ballot box, just like most everyone on here thought a mere year ago (and still complains about to this day).


Framingham? Seriously? Framingham has almost 70,00 residents. It's too big to be a town. Having lived in both Melrose and Wakefield I can tell you from personal experience that Wakefield's system is not onerous at all. The fact that Town Meeting gives a citizen the opportunity to vote on every single town warrant article and not just hand over control to a Mayor is all the reason I need to favor it.

Re: Four Candidates

Then why are you complaining about the requirement in the charter that requires the mayor to treat the position as a full time job? You cannot have it both ways. Are YOU being deliberately obtuse?

Re: Four Candidates

What part of this do you not understand? I am NOT - repeat for those who may be cognitively challenged - NOT complaining about the full-time provision in theory. What I'm complaining about is that the way it is written in the Charter effectively precludes anyone with an active career interest from running, and that it was worded that way to benefit Dolan, who was solely interested in maintaining his own position and not having to face a stronger candidate. Revising the Charter to allow someone to maintain such a current career interest part-time while still performing the duties of Mayor full-time is not impossible. Lots of people have a second part-time job.

And with that, I'm out. I can't waste waste any more time on someone who chooses not to understand the point.

Re: Four Candidates

What?
Again?
I, and I think most others, would disagree with you. I wouldn\'t want a Mayor (or town manager) that is also practicing law as a second job. There would bound to be conflicts with their time and the city would suffer for it. It is a good provision of the charter, and any candidate that would want to be mayor and still have a functioning law practice is NOT a good candidate for the job.

You may miss out on a candidate because they want to keep their law practice up and running but that is their choice and it would be personal to them. Melrose needs to be concerned that the mayor is working as the mayor at all expected times.


Are you being deliberately obtuse? How many times do I have to say that I agree the Mayor\'s position is a full time job before you actually get it?

Again?
I also firmly disagree with the notion that the town form of government is best. Town meetings are onerous bothers that are a relic of the past and lead to tyranny of the \"majority\". That is why you see towns becoming cities (like Framingham recently) and never vice versa. True representative democracy is much more preferable to me. Think about the outrage on this message board when the board picked Gail as mayor. That is what the selectmen would be doing with town manager every single time. I think it is best that the population votes on the mayor at the ballot box, just like most everyone on here thought a mere year ago (and still complains about to this day).


Framingham? Seriously? Framingham has almost 70,00 residents. It\'s too big to be a town. Having lived in both Melrose and Wakefield I can tell you from personal experience that Wakefield\'s system is not onerous at all. The fact that Town Meeting gives a citizen the opportunity to vote on every single town warrant article and not just hand over control to a Mayor is all the reason I need to favor it.

Okay, so I get that you think it is a full time job to be mayor. So how would you expect someone to run their company of any kind while doing the job of mayor? It would necessitate stepping away from your business while being mayor, correct? If that is the case, in your mind and mine, then what possible charter change would "fix" that so that Don Conn could run without putting his legal practice on hold? I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this point.

And, in my estimation, town meetings drive down voter participation drastically and leave decisions in the hands of those with the luxury of having 2-3 plus hours to attend a town meeting on a particular day. That is the definition of outmoded governance to me. Melrose gets good voter turnout typically and changing to town government would strip many of their voice. Truly representative democracy is better. The population has nothing to do with city vs town other than conversational shorthand.

Re: Four Candidates

What?
What part of this do you not understand? I am NOT - repeat for those who may be cognitively challenged - NOT complaining about the full-time provision in theory. What I'm complaining about is that the way it is written in the Charter effectively precludes anyone with an active career interest from running, and that it was worded that way to benefit Dolan, who was solely interested in maintaining his own position and not having to face a stronger candidate. Revising the Charter to allow someone to maintain such a current career interest part-time while still performing the duties of Mayor full-time is not impossible. Lots of people have a second part-time job.

And with that, I'm out. I can't waste waste any more time on someone who chooses not to understand the point.
Nope, that sounds stupid. What, so Don Conn would be a night time lawyer? You know almost all business of any kind (not just legal) gets done during the day, right? He wouldn't be able to be an effective lawyer and moonlight anyway. And he would be a less than optimal mayor if he was splitting time running a business on the side. Not to mention the conflicts of interest it could generate regarding directing business to a particular firm or delineating how his time was spent on what issues when. It is just nonsensical. I also don't think that has anything to do with why Don Conn wouldn't run.

Re: Four Candidates


Don Conn is not running for Mayor. Lets move on.

Re: Four Candidates

Will the Real Don Conn please stand up?

Don Conn is not running for Mayor. Lets move on.
Agreed. I just want that talking point about that charter provision to die off on this board already. It is tired and not well thought through by those who advocate for a change.

Re: Four Candidates

Sorry. You don't get to dictate what does or does not get talked about on this board, especially when it comes to that ridiculously flawed Charter.

Re: Four Candidates

Nope
Sorry. You don't get to dictate what does or does not get talked about on this board, especially when it comes to that ridiculously flawed Charter.
Cool, keep making ridiculous and flawed arguments against that particular (and reasonable) provision when actual problems exist in it and could use some attention. Your call. Keep looking stupid. Every city wants a mayor doing night deliveries for UberEats to supplement their income of 125k because that is the type of second job that would actually work in the situations you all are imagining.

Re: Four Candidates

"Again?" is just another Dolanite (or RD himself) trying to protect the precious OneMelrose status quo.

There are many effective city charters that could be referenced that do not have the onerous, foolish and/or ignorant language that characterize the charter that Melrose reapproved recently.

And if you need proof that the language prohibiting having a business or any kind of life while also being mayor is ridiculous, consider the fact that Mike F did not close his law practice while being the state rep.

A legitimate and qualified mayoral candidate not of retirement age (and/or not counting on being a lifer mayor) keeping her or his hand in a career that took a lifetime to develop does not preclude being a full-time mayor, except of course to those who can't manage to chew gum and walk at the same time. That ridiculous provision was crafted explicitly with RD in mind, someone who began his tenure as a 28-year-old and zero qualifications for the job (and whose father was the actual ghost mayor, with lots of sleazy Everett help from fine individuals like his convicted felon godfather). Do tell, by the way, how he managed to earn his master's degree while being a "full-time mayor"?

By the by, what is it about being a convicted felon that a large portion of Melrosians seem so utterly blind and unwilling to consider carefully, especially in the context of "fiscal responsibility" that those OneMelrose vigilantes are so fond of shoving in our faces like DellaRusso holding up one of his insulting charts????!!

Re: Four Candidates

silly
"Again?" is just another Dolanite (or RD himself) trying to protect the precious OneMelrose status quo.

There are many effective city charters that could be referenced that do not have the onerous, foolish and/or ignorant language that characterize the charter that Melrose reapproved recently.

And if you need proof that the language prohibiting having a business or any kind of life while also being mayor is ridiculous, consider the fact that Mike F did not close his law practice while being the state rep.

A legitimate and qualified mayoral candidate not of retirement age (and/or not counting on being a lifer mayor) keeping her or his hand in a career that took a lifetime to develop does not preclude being a full-time mayor, except of course to those who can't manage to chew gum and walk at the same time. That ridiculous provision was crafted explicitly with RD in mind, someone who began his tenure as a 28-year-old and zero qualifications for the job (and whose father was the actual ghost mayor, with lots of sleazy Everett help from fine individuals like his convicted felon godfather). Do tell, by the way, how he managed to earn his master's degree while being a "full-time mayor"?

By the by, what is it about being a convicted felon that a large portion of Melrosians seem so utterly blind and unwilling to consider carefully, especially in the context of "fiscal responsibility" that those OneMelrose vigilantes are so fond of shoving in our faces like DellaRusso holding up one of his insulting charts????!!
I'm certainly not a Dolan fan (especially with how he left town), but nice job going for the ad hominem logical fallacy right out of the gate.

It may shock you that Master's degrees can be earned at night. Scores of business professionals working full time jobs get them by doing online night classes.

Now, not many lawyers, only keep evening hours. That is much rarer (read: non-existent).

Mike Festa kept his law office open as State Rep because it is a different job than mayor. It is not a CEO-level position. You are not always in session. That is why so many lawyers run for those seats because they can still practice and live on the relatively low salary that a state rep gets. That is another reason that the mayor's salary is roughly twice that of a state rep's.

Mayor is always on and always "in-session" in case of any emergencies, and the position requires regular weekday office hours at a barest of minimums every single week of the year.

There was a lot of discussion during the aldermanic charter meetings about this exact point and they failed to find a way to thread the needle in a way that made sense to change the charter. It wasn't for lack of trying. It was because it functions as intended in it's current form and is what is best for Melrose.

Re: Four Candidates

April 30, 2019. There is currently $1.46million in reserves in the water & sewer enterprise funds.

Re: Four Candidates

Don Conn is out. Who else?

Re: Four Candidates

If these are the four we have, it’s time to start educating ourselves. And judging by this article, Brodeur is the only one who can list the OUTCOMES of the work he has done for melrose. That’s the only way to impress me. I’m not interested in your resume. Show me the results.

https://melrose.wickedlocal.com/news/20190423/field-so-far-melrose-mayoral-candidates-bring-different-backgrounds-philosophies-to-election

Re: Four Candidates

james p
Listen if this is what we have to choose from we are screwed.liberals liberals liberals god help us.cant we find a person in the middle who does not want to turn this city into cambridge.
The only person that would fit that description is Alderman Forbes. But he has no intentions of running so Cambridge it is.....

Re: Four Candidates

Forbes’s work in the community is undeniable. And he deserves all the credit for that. But his accomplishments as an alderman? Zilch. Not one thing. Like I said, show me the outcomes and as a person who can solve policy problems? He’s got NONE.

Re: Four Candidates

I don't think of Brodeur as too liberal. Monica isn't. The other two aren't worth my consideration.

Personally I don't really like Brodeur but he doesn't have to be my friend. He has to run the city.

Re: Four Candidates

It is what it is.

Re: Four Candidates

MM has already shown her true colors. She is a tRump supporter. She will never live that down with these voters. I don't think even she thinks she will win.

Re: Four Candidates

MM is out
MM has already shown her true colors. She is a tRump supporter. She will never live that down with these voters. I don't think even she thinks she will win.
Isn't she going to be the only Republican in the ticket? I don't think she'll win but there should be multiple perspectives in any race.

How did she show that she is a supporter? I'm not on board with him but people are and it may not be the negative you think for her candidacy. The fake one melrose wasn't going to vote for her anyway and to say you like trump here opens you up to hostility so folks stay quiet.

Re: Four Candidates

Cyndy Taymore is the superintendent for Melrose Public Schools and can not contain principals. The superintendent is the face of the district. She knows that the most important job of the school district is to make sure students are learning and achieving at high levels. ...She directs the administrators to accomplish the goals of the district, monitors their progress and evaluates their performance.

LEADERS MA+TTER: AASA< The School Superintendents Association represents superintendents at the national level. We will keep you informed of what's going on in Congress and the US Department of Education. School system leaders create meaningful change for the students they serve and their communities.

Re: Four Candidates

I VOTED FOR PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP and will do it again. So proud of the POTUS for helping America get to where we should be. The taxes I received from owning a business was outstanding. Another four years. The democrats lied and Obama spied.

Re: Four Candidates

How do I know MM is a tRump supporter? So there is this thing called google. Photo of her in Patch holding tRump/Pence sign.

Re: Four Candidates

I see this thread has devolved nicely. Some of the Trump people... Woof.

Re: Four Candidates

Devolution
I see this thread has devolved nicely. Some of the Trump people... Woof.
I have never googled MM so I didn't know. And don't care. Trump wasn't my vote but others support him. It's ok to have a different opinion. I didn't want to override but that won too.

Our tax rate is high enough.

Re: Four Candidates

What's a low tax rate? What's a high tax rate?
I only know my property taxes are already too high. The mortgage company sent a notice making me increase my monthly tax payment and the override isn't on there yet.

1 2