Civil discussion of this topic is available if: a)people use a real name that is verifiable (just as the Medford Mass Yahoogroup requires, as does the City Council), b)No personal attacks OR people who have engaged in personal attacks in the past commenting.
121,184
121,208 7:10 PM 9-7-13
________________________________________________
The Red Sox are the hottest team in baseball with the most wins of any team in either league AND the best record in the past ten games. September is here and that means it is time for October Surprises in Baseball and Politics. The Red Sox are the surprise in 2013 while we citizens are fighting for your rights, rights we believe are wrongfully being denied you.
* * * * *
How do we fight for those rights? Public records requests, speaking at "the People's Forum" - the City Council of Medford - and reaching out to citizens to help facilitate conversation on vital issues.
This Tuesday night we are requesting the Council that we pay close to $200,00 a year for, rescind the application of Rule 21 to an issue, and there are valid reasons for doing so:
13-658-
Petition by Joseph Viglione, Medford, MA that City Council to rescind the ruling on Council Rule 21 taken on August 6th meeting and to discuss issues for this election cycle.
_______________________________________
City Councilor Paul A. Camuso requested - possibly back at the July council meeting, that all talk about the Everett Casino and Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. cease for 90 days. He cited Rule 21. There's a big problem with this request by the councilor, so let us spell it out for him:
________________________________________________
1)Councilor Breanna Lungo Koehn has put on the agenda for Motions and Resolutions a VERY APPROPRIATE discussion of the Casino
13-646- Offered by Councillor Lungo-Koehn
Be it resolved that the City Administration update the Medford City Council on what step in the process we are on with regards to the possibility of a casino in Everett. Within the update please include, who will be paying for the impact studies that will be conducted, is Medford meeting all of our deadlines with regards to applications, have we been designated an impacted community and if so have negotiations begun?
______________________________________________
As time is of the essence on this matter, Rule 21 would be inappropriate, its application to deny discussion would impede conversation, would obstruct ideas that could benefit Medford and its residents, would benefit those who don't want Medford to be included in the conversation..
Essential, Rule 21 being applied to the casino issue, as Mr. Camuso so boldly stated to do at a Council meeting, would be detrimental to our city.
____________________________________________________
In a story on the August 6th Council meeting in the Medford Transcript noted: "After Pilleri(the TV3 president) was removed from the meeting, Councilor Paul Camuso suggested the body abide by Rule 21 of its bylaws, which states any petitions rejected, disposed of or ruled out of order should not be presented to the council for another three months."
______________________________________________________
The Casino is not on the ballot this November 05, 2013 The election is 58 days away http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20131105T00&p0=43&msg=Election+Day+2013+McGlynn+Rem...
and though there are public access stations in Woburn, Burlington, Winchester, Stoneham, Malden, Somerville, Arlington, Cambridge, Boston - every city and town touching upon Medford and more - we have no possibility of effectively speaking about the 13 candidates vying for 7 seats on the City Council, nor can we talk about the race that Anthony D'Antonio is in with Michael J. McGlynn to be the Mayor of Medford 2014 and 2015.
__________________________________________________
So the City Council voted 7-0 to rescind the Agreement the city holds with Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. We have no political speech on TV3 Medford (Comcast Channel 3), no speech whatsoever during an election cycle, and the beneficiary isn't you, nor is it the sole opponent on the ballot that McGlynn faces - Anthony D'Antonio, the beneficiary of no political speech is Michael J. McGlynn.
__________________________________________________
So let's put this in as clear a context as possible:
1)Michael J. McGlynn is the sole issuing authority over MCC TV3 and could pull the plug at any time
2)With no public access TV platform for his opponent - and with the Issuing Authority well aware that OTHER citizens are allowed to rent at 5 High Street even if Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. is not allowed back at the studio where they once operated, it was the obligation of the Mayor - the Issuing Authority - to show some courage and open up the cablespace so that his opponent could have equal time, so to speak.
3)Paul A. Camuso is tightly aligned with Michael J. McGlynn, despite what appears to be current friction between the two. It stands to reason that Mr. Camuso needs to get back in McGlynn's "good graces" and what better way for an embattled councilor taking slings and arrows from many sides but for him to make a motion keeping conversation that is anathema to McGlynn off of the Government channel airwaves.
_____________________________________________________
That's my position that I am discussing at the City Council. That's as simple as I can make it to keep peace while bringing up touchy subjects so that the 57,000 residents of Medford have a clue about the political maneuverings that appear to benefit some politicians over the entire city.
_______________________________________________
The question is: if Mr. Camuso didn't want us to discuss the casino and TV3 pursuant to his calling for Rule 21 to be employed in July, why - when he employed Rule 21 in August, was it only the TV3 issue? The answer: the Casino AND Rule 21 are both red herrings. There is only one discussion not wanted in the city of Medford and that benefits Camuso, Michael McGlynn and the non-profit being discussed, and no one else.
_________________________________
NEW EDIT
The Red Sox are the hottest team in baseball with the most wins of any team in either league AND the best record in the past ten games. September is here and that means it is time for October Surprises in Baseball and Politics. The Red Sox are the surprise in 2013 while we citizens are fighting for your rights, rights we believe are wrongfully being denied you.
* * * * *
How do we fight for those rights? Public records requests, speaking at "the People's Forum" - the City Council of Medford - and reaching out to citizens to help facilitate conversation on vital issues.
This Tuesday night we are requesting the Council that we pay close to $200,00 a year for, rescind the application of Rule 21 to an issue, and there are valid reasons for doing so:
13-658-
Petition by Joseph Viglione, Medford, MA that City Council to rescind the ruling on Council Rule 21 taken on August 6th meeting and to discuss issues for this election cycle.
_______________________________________
City Councilor Paul A. Camuso requested - possibly back at the July council meeting, that all talk about the Everett Casino and Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. cease for 90 days. He cited Rule 21. There's a big problem with this request by the councilor, so let us spell it out for him:
________________________________________________
1)For the September 10 meeting Councilor Breanna Lungo Koehn has put on the agenda for Motions and Resolutions a VERY APPROPRIATE discussion of the Casino
13-646- Offered by Councillor Lungo-Koehn
Be it resolved that the City Administration update the Medford City Council on what step in the process we are on with regards to the possibility of a casino in Everett. Within the update please include, who will be paying for the impact studies that will be conducted, is Medford meeting all of our deadlines with regards to applications, have we been designated an impacted community and if so have negotiations begun?
______________________________________________
As time is of the essence on this matter, Rule 21 would be inappropriate, its application to deny discussion would impede conversation, would obstruct ideas that could benefit Medford and its residents, would benefit those who don't want Medford to be included in the conversation.
Essentially, Rule 21 being applied to the casino issue, as Mr. Camuso so boldly stated to do at a Council meeting, would be detrimental to our city.
______________________________________________________
The Casino is not on the ballot this November 05, 2013, so why is it in the discussion ?
The election is 58 days away http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20131105T00&p0=43&msg=Election+Day+2013+McGlynn+Rem...
and though there are public access stations in Woburn, Burlington, Winchester, Stoneham, Malden, Somerville, Arlington, Cambridge, Boston - every city and town touching upon Medford and more - we have no possibility of effectively speaking about the 13 candidates vying for 7 seats on the City Council, nor can we talk about the race that Anthony D'Antonio is in with Michael J. McGlynn to be the Mayor of Medford 2014 and 2015.
_______________________________
The question is: if Mr. Camuso didn't want us to discuss the casino and TV3 pursuant to his calling for Rule 21 to be employed in July, why - when he employed Rule 21 in August, was it only the TV3 issue? The answer: the Casino AND Rule 21 are both red herrings. There is only one discussion not wanted in the city of Medford and that benefits Camuso, Michael McGlynn and the non-profit being discussed, and no one else. It is discriminatory to block out conversation on TV3 and allow discussion on the casino when Mr. Camuso called for a moratorium on both originally. I say, let conversations on both issues proceed.
__________________________________________________
So after the City Council voted 7-0 to rescind the Agreement the city holds with Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. we still have no new tv station. We have no political speech on TV3 Medford (Comcast Channel 3), no speech whatsoever during an election cycle, and they now want to stifle Free Speech on the Government Channel that we pay for. The beneficiary isn't you, nor is it the sole opponent on the ballot that McGlynn faces - Anthony D'Antonio, the beneficiary of no political speech is Michael J. McGlynn and a city councilor who seems to want so much to be back in McGlynn's friendly zone.
__________________________________________________
So let's put this in as clear a context as possible:
1)Michael J. McGlynn is the sole issuing authority over MCC TV3 and could pull the plug at any time
2)With no public access TV platform for his opponent - and with the Issuing Authority well aware that OTHER citizens are allowed to rent at 5 High Street even if Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. is not allowed back at the studio where they once operated, it was the obligation of the Mayor - the Issuing Authority - to show some courage and open up the cablespace so that his opponent could have equal time, so to speak.
3)Paul A. Camuso is tightly aligned with Michael J. McGlynn, despite what appears to be current friction between the two. It stands to reason that Mr. Camuso needs to get back in McGlynn's "good graces" and what better way for an embattled councilor taking slings and arrows from many sides but for him to make a motion keeping conversation that is anathema to McGlynn off of the Government channel airwaves.
_____________________________________________________
That's my position that I am discussing at the City Council. That's as simple as I can make it to keep peace while bringing up touchy subjects so that the 57,000 residents of Medford have a clue about the political maneuverings that appear to benefit some politicians over the entire city.
