1,157,864 all time page views
2-25-18
RE: Correspondence from city hall
Dear AGO's office:
Before I address the response to my complaint - though "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill I find it disingenuous for a city employee to espouse political quotes with religious overtones when that city employee allegedly has violated the public trust and allegedly his oath of office, allegedly appearing in Somerville District Court as a bill collector on Thursdays when he is paid handsomely by the citizens of Medford;
also, Mr. Rumley was on the board of directors (appointed by the mayor) of Medford Community Cabllevision, Inc. - not as an investigator but as a board member.
Mr. Rumley then decided he would be the investigator of his fellow board members, and then he abruptly dropped the investigation and pawned it off to another division of the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Rumley's response to any serious investigation of his allegedly wrongful conduct results in Donad Trump-styled smears.
He has called this writer "delusional" and that my hard work and honest efforts are "rants" - Mr. Rumley should recuse himself from engaging in responses to open meeting law violation allegations due to his inability to keep from smearing residents he disagrees with AND the fact that his hands are not very clean when it comes to transparency, properly defending the city (in my opinion,) and his temperament.
Rumley's Jekyll and Hyde persona, as exhibited at the council when he gets into hissing contests with Michael Marks in public (Marks being a city councilor and one of the individuals represented by Rumley, ostensibly,) is a good case in point. Outside of government, an attorney attacking his own client in public would be reprehensible.
So why is a city attorney allowed to thrown down and denigrate a "client" that he represents?
So why is a city attorney allowed to thrown down and denigrate a "client" that he represents?
Rumley's delusions of grandeur must be noted before my response so the AG's office knows exactly who they are dealing with here. See Img_2474 (attached) Mr. Rumley's oath of office
_____________________________________
Response to City's Response
1)In his preface Mr. Rumley claims that my complaint was not on the official form. Actually, I did write it on the official form AND sent it via e mail as well. Sometimes text falls off of the forms, which happened in this case.
I'm certain that I noted that in the original e mail.
I'm certain that I noted that in the original e mail.
Feb 8, 2018
Mr. Finn, Mr. Caraviello, Mr. Rumley
If the PDF did not retain the complaint, it is here:
____________________________________________________
1:24 minutes in Mr. Rumley notes that I did send the form over. Rumley admits on the taped session that I did send the proper form over and that he accepts "substance" over "style" This is missing from his preface where he uses the text not appearing in the PDF as an argument to dismiss the case for improper filing. This is disingenuous as Rumley stated otherwise in the hearing.
My video of the session in Room 207, which should have been cablecast on TV for the public to see by the city, is enclosed in this link:
2)FACTS PERTINENT TO FIRST ALLEGED VIOLATION
My complaint notes: Attorney General Maura Healey states on the OML site: "Every resident of Massachusetts should be able to access and understand the reasoning behind the government policy decisions that affect our lives. My office is working to achieve that goal through fair and consistent enforcement of the Open Meeting Law, along with robust educational outreach about the law's requirements." The persistent wrongful conduct of Knight and Dello Russo is designed to make residents unable to access and understand policy decisions that affect our lives.
I'm not saying that Mr. Knight went to another board meeting, I'm saying that Mr. Knight left an OPEN MEETING to allegedly address how he would vote while being paid $30,000.00 or so a year to participate in the city council meeting, which was in session. By leaving the open meeting to discuss something he was going to inject into the open meeting, in private, violated not only the spirit of AG Maura Healey's assertion that every resident should be able to access and understand the reasoning behind government policy decisions, in my opinion, the secretive nature of Knight's willful act was designed to deceive the public.
The right hand of the city council is doing one thing in open session, 1/7th of that council, Mr. Knight, is doing something deceitfully which will affect the public vote, known only to a few people. How does this constitute an "open meeting" when one of the body can on a whim do something that will have a profound effect on the city, AND on the outcome of the voting?
With this in mind, Mr. Knight clearly violated the entire idea of having a meeting that is truly open to the public. It was in secret and I believe it affected the outcome, to the dismay of many of the citizens of Medford and to the delight of the mayor, who wanted to ram the issue through without full public participation.
_________________________________________________________________________
3)Second Alleged Violation
Frederick N.Dello Russo, Jr. knew that I was on topic discussing aggregation. He threatened to gavel and interfere in my discussion on the topic. This is a stunt regularly pulled by the city council as well as the mayor when she chairs the school committee (Mayor Burke pulled a similar gavel blast on October 16, 2017 at a school committee meeting to stop my free speech on the subject of something pertaining to the public access station in its tracks.) So if you are talking about aggregation, and Vice President Dello Russo doesn't want the information disseminated to the public, Dello Russo slams the gavel and says you are off topic, even though you are directly on topic.
They frequently bully residents with this objectionable maneuver and it is the antithesis of AG Maura Healey's assertions regarding having open meetings, open discussion of matters of great PUBLIC INTEREST. Note that they have a fancy attorney to back up their penchant for thwarting free speech and the public getting a full and clear picture of something that will have serious ramifications for the public after a vote. The public is blindsided by such actions.
4)In his Resolution of Issue #2 Mr Rumley claims citizens aren't entitled to speak! "...even though the Open Meeting Law doesn't require it. (10, see G.L. c 30A) - Mr. Rumley claims that even though the city council rules allow for free speech for 10 minutes, that a chair can shut down a person speaking? This flies in the face of the First Amendment when citizens are allowed to speak.
Mr. Rumley wants to control speech. He wants a chair to be able to interfere in the thought process of each citizen so that the city can control thought. Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. This is the conflicted city solicitor, who allegedly moonlighted on the citizens bill collecting at Somerville District Court on Thursdays, allegedly.
Here's a fact on Mr. Rumley's skewed vision of free speech:
Mr. Rumley felt like Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.was operating as if it were in "Havana" - his words to me in his office circa 2006, 2007. Interesting that Mr. Rumley never changed the rules while he was on that board, so when it pleases Mr. Rumley, he invokes his Havana Method of interrupting free speech when it is something Rumley and his colleagues do not want to hear: information from the people paying their salaries.
So Rumley conveniently states the Open Meeting Law doesn't cover people speaking to a council, while Rule 17 of the City Council Rules has the jurisdiction over such a meeting --- interesting
Then add Rumley's bald-faced lie to a retired judge utilizing the council chambers for a public hearing and note his defense in the document he submitted which is in total violation of what he said to the retired judge, Marie O. Jackson-Thompson. Too bad the solicitor, Rumley, wasn't under oath when he said this to the citizens watching and the judge! (Exhibit B)
Exhibit A:
Rules of Debate
Rule 17.
Upon all debatable matters a Councillor shall speak no more than three (3) times or more than fifteen (15) minutes on the same issue. Any citizen or petitioner shall be limited to ten (10) minutes.
_________________________________________________________________
Exhibit B Mark Rumley's lie to Judge Jackson-Thompson
City Solicitor Mark E. Rumley / Medford Daily Mercury on or about Nov. 16, 2008 (quoted from the 2nd Judge Jackson-Thompson hearing) saying:
“The one sentiment that I have heard that I take great exception to is that the city is trying to limit speech,” said Rumley. “The notion the city would censor or squelch free speech is baseless and as city solicitor I would find any such effort repugnant.”
The fact that Mr. Rumley tells fibs whenever it serves his purpose to enable violations of the spirit of the Open Meeting Law, and that this citizen has investigated Rumley's conduct since early 2003, and that I am a respected rock journalist who has generously offered my talents to the citizens of Medford who have been denied transparency by two Administrations of this city government (run-on-sentence employed for effect) - it is incumbent upon the OML division of the AG's office to find in favor of the complainant (please note, in the above linked video Mr. Rumley says what sounds like complaintant - with an additional "t" - is that even such a word?)
IF the council gets away with these free speech violations on technicalities, then Mr. Richard Caraviello's assertion to me on February 20th after the Room 207 meeting (video linked above) that "I don't care about the Attorney General's office Open Meeting Law" prior to presiding over the February 20th meeting, prior to the cameras going on, is all you need to know about these alleged "public servants." I have a copy of Mr. Caraviello's oath of office if you need it.
Respectfully,
Joe Viglione