Chapter 74 Board Muccini-Burke Broke the Law

Jul 4, 2017 at 5:12 PM

Division of Open Government
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 963-2540
www.mass.gov/ago/openmeeting
OpenMeeting@state.ma.us

Mark Rumley, City Solicitor

Medford City Hall

85 George P. Hassett Drive

Medford, MA 02155

RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Attorney General's Office

I have received an e mail from the body, the city of Medford, July 2, 2017 (enclosed) in regards to an open meeting law alleged violation by the mayor, Stephanie Muccini Burke, and Roy Belson, the superintendent of schools, and others regarding a Radio / TV Advisory Committee that has been in operation for at least a year and which elected officials from both the city council and school committee were unaware of.

Point 1:  If elected officials are unaware of the existence of a committee which, ostensibly, oversees monies from cable TV subscribers, the public's right to know is squelched and suppressed intentionally.

Medford City Government employees these tactics in a number of ways, from council meetings to school committee meetings.  I have detailed notes on such outrageous suppression of the public's right to know, which I will HAPPILY share with the office of the Attorney General.

This week I am filing a second Open Meeting Law Complaint on the City Council President, Richard F. Caraviello retaliating and shutting down a Facebook live which gives information to people who do not have cable TV service.   Just as one glaring example of how outrageous the city of Medford is in what residents call the "Medford Media Blackout."

Point 2:  In a public records request response Superintendent Belson's public records officer notes that in the future they will comply with the open meeting law.   They will post the meetings in the future, which we should take as an admission of guilt in this allegation of an open meeting law violation.

The AG's website notes:

Open Meeting Law complaints do not appear in this display unless the complainant is unsatisfied with the public body’s resolution of his or her Open Meeting Law complaint and has filed the complaint with the Attorney General. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(6).  Upon the receipt of a complaint by any person, the Attorney General shall determine, in a timely manner, whether there has been a violation of the Open Meeting Law.  G.L. c. 30A, § 23(c).

Point #3  This is my official complaint to the AG's office, on Independence Day to make a bold point, as I am unsatisfied, as usual, with the City Solicitor Mark Rumley's expected and traditional response - one that usually protects such a lack of transparency and defends the indefensible. 

Point #4  On July 4th 9:01 am, 2017, a member of that committee wrote me.  Robert Haigh had this to say:

Please note that I do not sit on a Cable Advisory Board or on a Board of Directors for Medford access channels.  2 years ago I was invited to participate in early ascertainment planning for equipment costs and the costs of building a new facility in existing school property as part of a larger VoTech future planning process.   It was a one time event.

_____________________________________________________________

This from a person they have listed as a board member, as far as I can ascertain from the public records response, and - voila - now the "one time event" has a newly minted title AFTER my public records request(s) and Open Meeting Law complaint - a Chapter 74.  

Point #5  The city of Medford has become most efficient at censorship practices, from the duplicitous Mark Rumley's documented hypocrisy and spoken word, which is refuted by Mr. Rumley's own actions.  Who are you going to believe, a lawyer who allegedly lies to a retired judge about the First Amendment or your own eyes?  I fully expect the city solicitor to threaten another lawsuit to attempt to silence me stating the obvious to a government agency in authority.

I'm also dissatisfied because - having met Martha Coakley three times, I understand how close to city hall that Coakley is and that Maura Healy is alleged to be.  How can we have oversight when the wolves are allowed to "wreak havoc" - or wreck, if you will - with cable TV subscriber monies that have magically gone into the black hole of paying into the General Fund, the salaries of Lisa Dunphy, Allison Goldsberry and Jack Dempsey and now, in 2017, after getting away with it so long, muddying the waters so that the public monies pay for the educational side of things.  It is unfair and a major reason why they had a hidden, secret board that allegedly violated the open meeting law.

I, Joe Viglione, submit that they did this willfully, maliciously, intentionally - all to deprive the public of the right to know, the right to participate, the right to steer the ship in a more honest and practical direction.

_________________________________________________________________

Purpose of the Law

The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to ensure transparency in the deliberations on which public policy is based.  Because the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, the Open Meeting Law requires, with some exceptions, that meetings of public bodies be open to the public.  It also seeks to balance the public’s interest in witnessing the deliberations of public officials with the government’s need to manage its operations efficiently.

I want the office of the Attorney General to look into this matter, see about the dissolution of a board of directors that the public is unaware of, have a watchdog group oversee access television in Medford, and punish the individuals who perpetrated this absurd secret committee to the full extent of the law.

I will also state as a cable TV host dating back to 1979, I am disappointed in AG Maura Healy failing - as Martha Coakley before her failed, to file charges against the previous non-profit in a timely manner. What is going on with Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.?  I demand answers.

Thank you.

Joe Viglione   

p.s. the above five points are amended with more points in a response to the City Solicitor's e mail of July 2 .  See below

---

From: Mark Rumley <markrumley@medford-ma.gov>
To: Joe Viglione <joeviglione@yahoo.com>
Cc: Roy Belson <rbelson@medford.k12.ma.us>; "Rush, Hanne (AGO)" <hanne.rush@state.ma.us>; "mpspublicrecords@medford.k12.ma.us" <mpspublicrecords@medford.k12.ma.us>; Kim Scanlon <kscanlon@medford-ma.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 8:59 AM
Subject: Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Mr. Viglione:

 

Attached is a pdf copy of the “Open Meeting Law Complaint Form” that you filed with the Law Department on June 26, 2017.

 

I note that Alicia Palmer, the School Department Public Records Officer, sent you an email on June 28, 2017 in which she stated:

 

            Dear Mr. Viglione,

In consultation with the Superintendent I have been advised of the following: 

The Media Advisory Committee to which you refer is a Chapter 74 Advisory Committee for Vocational Education.  It is not the Cable Advisory Committee/Board for Public Access. The Public Access Advisory Board has yet to be appointed and established. The purpose of the Chapter 74 Advisory Board is to inform the Educational Program of the Public Schools.  These Advisory Committees draw from a wide range of expertise found both within the city and beyond. The posting of the meeting for the Chapter 74 Advisory Committee is found on the Vocational School Calendar which may be found by going to the website of the Medford Public School.  The Superintendent has advised me in the future this Advisory Committee will be more prominently posted throughout the city to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to observe and participate.

Sincerely,

Alicia Palmer

Public Records Access Officer

Medford Public Schools

489 Winthrop Street

Medford, MA 02155

781-393-2200

mpspublicrecords@medford.k12.ma.us

In light of Ms. Palmer’s email it appears that the public body to which you make reference [i.e. the “Radio/TV Advisory Committee”] is in fact the “Chapter 74 Advisory Committee for Vocational Education”.

So that I understand the nature of your “Open Meeting Law Complaint”, you are stating that whether the public body is  called the “Radio/TV Advisory Committee” or called the “Chapter 74 Advisory Committee for Vocational Education”, you are stating that on July 11, 2016 and thereafter this body has been in violation of the open meeting law.

Please state the nature of the ongoing violation.

POINT SIX  :

a)see the five points above. 

b)no one was even aware of any commission

c)why does such a commission which admits to not posting the events so that the public can be aware of them, have a variety of names?

In addition, you state that “[O]n 6/14/17 a man from Revere stated that he is part of this committee”. Would you kindly identify this person so that I may speak to him.

POINT 7  He was named, Russell DeLuca-Kavanagh.  You will find his name in my original complaint.

Further, the action that you request- “Dissolve this objectionable and offensive secret board. Have community people on a new board to set up access and prosecute MCC TV3 to the full extent of law, if necessary” – will not be taken since it is neither warranted nor reasonable.

POINT 8: It is reasonable, it is beneficial to the citizens of Medford to remove a board that the public is not aware of, and we expect city hall to continue its obscene Medford Media Blackout.  But what do I know?  I was innocently taping the Great Debate in October of 2015 when the mayor's husband, clerk of court Brian S. Burke, called me a "motherfucker" (pardon for publishing the offensive word here) and tried to stop me from taping.  There are many witnesses to that.

So, Mr. Rumley, what the hell are you talking about since the Medford Police crafted law that doesn't exist to file a criminal complaint on this video producer / journalist which cost me thousands and thousands of dollars to defend, only to be found innocent of the malicious abuse of the criminal court system.   See the Medford Transcript publishing how I was vindicated from the nonsense perpetrated on any resident speaking up for civil rights.

_____________________________________

POINT 8  RUMLEY'S CHARADE continued

(I spell it correctly; TV 3 calls it "Rumley's Chirade" (sic)

Finally, I suggest that you take up matters relating to Medford Community Cablevision with the Attorney General’s Office, Non-Profit Division. As you are surely aware, the dissolution of that non-profit was filed with that office. Such matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this office.

Point 8  Actually, there is a newspaper article where you admit you were investigating and failed to do your job, you, Mark Rumley, were derelict (and still are) in your obligations to the public paying you handsomely.  Where is YOUR report, and YES, I expect the Open Meeting Law complaint to be tied in to the Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. investigation as the current deceptive business practices City Hall, in concert with the high school, are perpetrating on the citizens of this municipality follow the same exact pattern of abuse that we experienced at TV 3.

MCC TV 3, by the way, which you were a board member of.  A city lawyer investigating a board of a non-profit that he sat on, appointed or not, is in my eyes a serious and severe conflict of interest, which also renders your ridiculous response to my serious complaint as moot.

I don't think you should have any part in any investigation as you were on the board of the TV station and, as Nell Coakley - former editor of the weekly paper, often complained about Allison Goldsberry, considered it a conflict for Goldsberry.  It is that same conflict, in my eyes, for you, Solicitor Rumley.

As I believe you are conflicted, I do not believe you should be involved in the legal oversight of any cable TV issues, Mr. Rumley, until the AG's office issues its findings on the non-profit board which you were a vital member of.

I demand the AG's office shut down the board, investigate Roy Belson and the Mayor and their accomplices on these allegations, and let us start fresh with community members engaging in the process.

Thank you

Joe Viglione

Happy Fourth, indeed.

Mark Rumley writes:

Have a Happy and Safe Fourth of July,

JV writes: Yes, I'm leaving the car at home and taking the bus. Thank you for the kind thoughts.