The Exhibit identification A,B,C,D,E,F has changed from the previous document so it will not correspond with the previous rough draft of the letter published earlier. My apologies for any inconvenience - the editor.
_________________________________
Again - as so many times before - I feel the incomplete records are (allegedly) the intentional zig-zagging by City Solicitor Rumley and Mayor Stephanie Muccini-Burke to keep the public in the dark.
Troubling information in Exhibit D explains that the Comcast contract was not available to the public until 3/17/2015, even though City Hall had it on or about December 18, 2014 On or about November 07, 2014 I requested documents - Exhibit A
Also, Tim Kelly of Comcast requested a response by April 18, 2015, and City Hall dragged its feet on allowing us to see the new proposed contract after Comcast mailed it on or about December 18, 2014. The Solicitor informed me on March 17, 2015 that it was available, and not before then. So, where is this extension document?
THIS IS VERY TROUBLING - City Hall despises people looking into the access TV funding
Note that my Exhibit A Exhibit was made on November 7, 2014, I wrote to Mr. Rumley again (Exhibit F) on November 21, 2014, they received the records I was looking for on or about December 18, 2014 - the Comcast Contract - and we the people did not receive it until a full three months later causing irreparable harm to the mission. It was NOT sent when received but I found it by looking in the City Clerk's office on or about March 17. Exactly three months later Clerk Finn verbally assaulted me outside of Alden Chambers - probably in retaliation - June 16, 2015. (Editor - Finn did a lot more than that, but we have the admission from Caraviello that there was a yelling incident so for the purposes of this request, we'll leave it to what we have evidence of at this time.)
Clerk Finn did NOT do his job, claims the dog ate his homework, and Mark E. Rumley could have phoned me when the contract came in.
Instead these overpaid reprobates hide information that was requested legally.
Instead these overpaid reprobates hide information that was requested legally.
Now City Hall's Solicitor's office claims they only give documents. My claim is that they did NOT give me the documents. See their response attached.
EXHIBIT F
On 11/21/14 11:27 AM, "Joseph Viglione" wrote:
Dear Solicitor Rumley,
I did not receive the documents for this request
dated 11/7/14, 14 days ago
________________________________________________________________________________________________
I will set up a meeting with Aleesha Nunley (cc:d above) and will note the vicious retaliation I faced with false charges in Cambridge District Court when I requested information on bomb-sniffing dogs at the high school and allegations of a varsity coach having inappropriate relations with a powerful politician's daughter. The phony criminal case was a vulgar and criminal attempt by city hall to silence a critic who is "snooping around" as far as they are concerned. And you KNOW why city hall has so much anxiety ...clearly, there's something there. Which is why the public records law, in my opinion, is something Medford City Hall ignores as much as they THINK they possibly can, and they ignore it with impunity. And they break the law by filing false charges on people who are civil and who do things in the appropriate manner.
I am soon discussing with the MCAD a case against Medford for retaliation for my filing a public records request. The timeline is chilling.
Please see that Medford CIty Hall responds in a civil way, efficiently, quickly, and with the documents they claim they don't have.
\
Respectfully,Joe Viglione