1,204,033@7:11 pm
1,204,017@6:35 pm
1,203,969@6:04 pm
1,204,017@6:35 pm
1,203,969@6:04 pm
PUBLIC RECORDS DIVISION
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
The Public Records officer is attorney Kim Scanlon, also in the Medford Law department with
Mr. Rumley. It is an anomaly that Mr. Rumley take control of public records again.
I understand the police may have asked for a legal opinion, however, since Mr. Rumley was at one time on the board of directors of Medford Community Cablevision, Inc., a corporation that's been under investigation by the office of the Attorney General's Public Charities division (with "law enforcement" involved, according to the division, we have less information on the current status of MCC,) and the individual who is named in the evidence that I gave to the Medford Police was also on the board of directors of that corporation (both Solicitor Rumley and the alleged perpetrator resigned from the board,) I have concerns that there may be a conflict with Attorney Rumley responding to something he is so close to.
Mr.
Rumley wrote a report ten years ago regarding the bad situation at the
station, and the city co-owned the equipment that may have been used by
the subject in this public record's request for documents.
I object to Mr. Rumley participating in this process as:
a)the city may have co-owned the equipment used for the alleged pornography
b)the
reason noted above, Mr. Rumley's involvement on the MCC TV3 board of
directors from one or two appointments by Mayor McGlynn
This is a matter of GREAT public interest. Let's have the process be as fair and transparent as
possible.
It is not in Mr. Rumley's best interest to be participating here as he was on the board and a huge scandal like the allegation of child pornography generated from a public access TV station would be a black eye on the city and egg on Mr. Rumley's nicely pressed shirt.
I
believe there is a cover-up going on of massive proportions, which is
why they do not want the evidence that I provided returned to me, the
documents in the request.
While
the city of Medford police department, in association with the office
of the district attorney, has engaged in pressing false charges on an
online magazine editor in an attempt to stifle freedom of the press
(they lost the case 1/31/17, of course) and with Mr. Rumley making a
cottage industry out of demeaning and belittling this writer from the
witness stand in at least two cases (a judge kindly removed Mr. Rumley
when I objected on 9/1/16 in Somerville District Court) it is clear that
the city of Medford is hiding many, many things.
Alleged child pornography allegedly
generated by equipment co-owned by the city is certainly a reason why
Mr. Rumley is so reticent to cooperate with a request from the very
writer that supplied the police with those documents in the first place;
documents mailed to me anonymously.
The
city should hire outside counsel to handle this as the city has a
vested interest in not handing over the documents, which I originally
wanted the FBI to handle. It was obvious to me how controversial these
documents are and that the city would do everything it could to:
a)not properly investigate
b)try to hide the documents once they got their hands on them
I respectfully give you this additional information so that you know the playing field.
The public interest outweighs city hall wanting to save face for being negligent. Indeed,
it
was Mr. Rumley himself who neglected to have the proper number of board
members available to stop the hijacking of an election which I warned
Mr. Rumley about on or about December, 2007.
Had
Rumley acted in an appropriate fashion, the individual who allegedly
made the pornographic material, which may be child pornography, may have
never even had access to the equipment he allegedly used. So you see
the conflict for the city solicitor in this instance.
I respectfully request that outside counsel be hired by the city to handle this extremely sensitive issue.
Dig Boston has an interesting article on the new law:
Instead of accepting the new law as
written, Galvin’s office has decided to reinterpret it to mean the same
thing as the old one. According to the proposed regulations, which were
released last week, “it shall be within the discretion of [Galvin’s
office] whether to open an appeal concerning a request for public
records.” The regulations state that Galvin’s office may decline to rule
on an appeal for one of several listed reasons—or for no reason at all.
Respectfully,
Joe Viglione