1,565,163 @ 4:34 pm
1,565,147 @ 4:15 pm
820 @ 4:34 pm this day
804 views since 8 pm 3/8 to 4:15 3/9
____________________________ Story: Councilor Knight's Suspension of Free Speech in the City of Medford
Free Speech Suspension in Medford, Massachusetts
A Joe Viglione Essay
Within the half hour, past 11 am, I received documents on Medford
Community Cablevision, Inc.'s finances. These documents I have been
requesting for the better part of 5 years. Simultaneous with this
inspection of free speech erosion in Medford, Massachusetts there is
controversy concerning city councilor Adam Knight's absurd plan to
further curb First Amendment rights. Both items will be discussed on
Tuesday, March 10, 2020 (tomorrow night) at 7 PM, Alden Chambers,
Medford City Hall.
Let's start with yet another travesty from Councilor Knight. On April 9,
2019 Mr. Knight - straying from his usual "Happy Birthday"
congratulations and "Unhappy Deathday" eulogies - which to this writer
since Knight can't resist an opportunity to do this - appear to be
nothing more than patronizing the citizenry as a sort of
quasi-campaigning for future office. There are so many of these moments
at the council from Knight that it is a disgrace. We have critical
issues regarding water and sewer, National Grid cutting up the streets,
fractured roadways, pay to park, the DPW, the high school, so many
issues that are vitally more important than Mr. Knight saying happy
birthday to some individual many in the community do not know. So why
discriminate? Have a Happy Birthday notice for EVERY CITIZEN prior to a
council meeting and stop wasting time on one of the most expensive city
councils in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Knight has proven by his lack of motions and resolutions that would
benefit this city that it is all about him, not about you.
____________________________________________________________________________
Now comes the return of this cockamamie stunt from April 2019 eleven
months later - scheduled for March 10, 2020, and it is - again - a toxic
attempt at limiting your free speech rights in Medford.
On March 7, 2020 former council candidate Jean Nuzzo wrote this on her
Medford Moderates Facebook page: "An interesting item on this weeks city
council agenda. For as far back as I can remember a resident can speak
before the city council by suspension with a vote and a second. It
seems the Councillor Is proposing to change that to a vote of 4; and
with an immediate requisite of tabling the matter- which essentially
stifles the ability to speak before the city council ad hoc. This is
beyond troubling for so many reasons: (Jean goes on to post 20-089 (see
attached) regarding Council Rule #37.
Patricia Brady Doherty responds in this fashion: "The question needs to
be asked; why does Councilor Knight want to do this? He had this on the
agenda in a different form in the fall. Former Councilor Bob Maiocco
was famous for saying "it is the people's forum".
Interesting that - indeed - Maiocco would call it "the people's forum,"
but if you spoke too many weeks in a row Maiocco would complain. A
local business owner said to Maiocco "But you call it "the people's
forum." So you see that some members of the council - for years - say
one thing to the public, but sometimes expose their own hypocrisy with a
Freudian slip or two.
Doherty further gives this opinion: "I respectfully disagree with the
acting city solicitor. A resolution offered under suspension does not
violate the Open Meeting Law if the resolution topic was not reasonably
anticipated by the City Council.
The City
Council’s current and longstanding practice of allowing resolutions to
be offered under suspension and of tabling such discussions for future
meetings is exactly in keeping with the legislative intent of the Open
Meeting Law and with the determinations made by the Massachusetts
Attorney General (“AG”). The AG’s Office has determined that: 1) if a
topic not on the agenda is deemed to be an emergency, a public body such
as the City Council may hold substantive discussions on the topic; and
2) that a non-emergency topic may be offered if, wherever possible,
substantive discussion of the topic is postponed. The law does not
prevent the public from offering resolutions under suspension on topics
not on the agenda. See 940 CMR 29.00, et seq.; OML 2014-117.
Acting
City Solicitor Scanlon errs in stating: “The Attorney General’s Office
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has determined that [the] only
matters that can be discussed are those listed on the meeting notice.
See OML 2014-117.” See Scanlon Correspondence Dated February 23, 2020.
This is incorrect and directly contrary to the actual determination.
What OML 2014-117 actually states is that “[w]hile public bodies may
discuss topics not listed on the meeting notice if they were not
anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting, we encourage
postponement of discussion on such items whenever possible.” OML
2014-117 (internal citations omitted).
Scanlon
mischaracterizes the AG’s findings in OML 2014-117, where the AG’s
office had investigated a public board that “violated the Open Meeting
Law by deliberating on an anticipated topic not listed in the notice”
that was “a longstanding issue” of which the board was aware because
“the topic had been listed on at least four prior notices.” See OML
2014-117.
The key analysis is whether the topic
was anticipated by the public body, not whether the topic was listed on
the agenda. The City Council’s practice of allowing resolutions to be
offered under suspension grants the public an open forum to introduce
unanticipated discussions publicly, encouraging transparency in choices
of future agenda topics."
Cheryl Rodriguez notes: "yeah. I am not agreeing with that opinion. It
is a reasonable expectation and not meant to stifle bringing up issues
that are brought to members attention after agenda deadlines nor to
prevent community members from bringing issues to council in real time.
Council members are free to add items to the next agenda if they want
more community input or want to gain more info in the following week to
share with the community. They need MORE engagement on that council, not
less..."
Ms.
Doherty adds: "To further clarify and to use an example: In Paragraph 5
of the acting city solicitor's letter, she correctly cites OML 2016-101
and acknowledges that the AG's Office has determined that "public bodies
may discuss a topic not listed on a meeting notice if the topic was not
anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting" but then
contradicts herself in Paragraph 6 by stating that the AG's Office
determined that the "only matters that can be discussed are those listed
on the meeting notice." In concluding that the only matters that may be
discussed are those listed on the meeting notice, the solicitor
seemingly misunderstands OML 2014-117 and OML 2016-101 which state
explicitly that matters not reasonably anticipated may be discussed.
Also prohibiting proper resolutions offered under suspension undermines
government transparency and strips the people of the their right to be
heard in an open forum. An example: Joe Doe would like to speak under
suspension at the council to complain about the snow plow job the city
did on his street last night and would like it corrected. He also does
not like the snow plow schedule and would like it changed. The city
council legally can listen to Joe Doe complain about the snow plow job
on his street and further to vote to request the mayor to direct the
proper department to do a better job. With regards to Joe Doe's request
to discuss and change the snow plow schedule, the council would need to
table that matter for the following week so that those affected would be
given notice and the ability to be heard on the record. Two different
aspects of the matter are appropriately handled in two different ways in
compliance with the Open Meeting Law."
Recently Mr. Knight wanted to force council meetings to Wednesdays, not
Tuesdays, and there was no coherence to his proposal.
It
was defeated. City Councilors are public servants and councils past
voted for the thirty thousand dollars or so that these jokers receive
when I believe being on a city council should be a volunteer position.
Especially under Plan A Government.
The coincidence here is that my speech on the First Amendment and TV3
is scheduled for tomorrow night. So while I'm working hard to get more
'free speech" for Medford (or stop the chilling of speech in Medford)
you've got a city councilor already exposing his true stripes in wanting
to muzzle the community.
Adam Hurtubise
City Council, Room 207
Medford City Hall
Medford MA 02155
Documents: City Council April 9, 2019
City Council March 10, 2020
Hello to John Falco and Adam Hurtubise:
Please be advised that wrongful conduct by Adam Knight occurred on or about October 3, 2017. Knight is fixated on being a
disruptive
individual who works against the people. I demand you do not tolerate
Knight's antics and sanction him, if necessary,
if Knight goes off the reservation again, which he is so prone to doing.
We understand that Mr. Knight would rather campaign for himself almost every council meeting congratulating residents or
offering
condolences - even to people who loathed him - just to promote
himself. Mr. Knight's motions and petitions rarely benefit
the city of Medford.
On or about October 3, 2017 Mr. Knight abused his authority by shutting down conversation of my speech when people were lined
up in Alden Chambers to discuss the matter.
Mr. Knight's inappropriate behavior is a dereliction of duty. It is most likely a violation of his oath of office.
We
are dealing with an unprofessional, nasty, rude, obstinate city
councilor who, like his inept and bungling partner in alleged
malfeasance, Richard F. Caraviello, does not give a damn about the
citizens of Medford.
Madame
Mayor needs to keep an eye on these individuals. Breanna also needs to
stop throwing rose petals and rice when these disgraceful councilors
take advantage of the free speech venue to benefit themselves. This is
NOT a game, Breanna, this is real life.
Take some good advice from someone much older than you, someone judges call "very logical" and "intelligent."
Breanna, it's been two months, time for you to get to work. A LOT of people are buzzing that they are disappointed -
we went from the allegedly crooked past two administrations to a city government that looks like a stage play for fifth graders.
Vacation time is over. Take a cue from me and let's get to work.
Thank you
Joe Viglione
The City Council of Medford, Massachusetts
Date of alleged violation: Tuesday October 3, 2017
Specific
person(s), if any, you allege committed the violation: City Councilor
Adam Knight (in concert with Fred Dello Russo, Jr. and Richard F.
Caraviello)
Name of Public Body (including city/town, county or region, if applicable): Medford City Council
At
23 minutes and 37 seconds into the meeting, the council presented my
petition on Tuesday, October 3, 2017. With little space to breathe, at
33:17 into the meeting, right after my ten allotted minutes to speak,
Mr. Knight - not caring about the other residents – multiple – who
wanted to speak on a subject of great public interest, willfully and
maliciously jumps in “Mr. President, motion to receive and place on
file.”
Knight’s
partner in this disruptive activity, Councilor Frederick N. Dello Russo
Jr., immediately seconds it, (which means Dello Russo should also be
included in this complaint, another city councilor who serves himself
and not the public, that’s their game and it violates the very purpose
of the open meeting law: continuous harassment of residents, senior
citizens, an ex member of the city council, all for the enjoyment of
Knight, Dello Russo (and Council President Caraviello) and for
censorship purposes.
The
city solicitor, who often brags about the city not censoring people,
allowed it to happen right before his very eyes on October 3, 2017. At
33 minutes and 30 seconds in on the subject a woman wanted to speak on
the matter, but Knight’s swift assault on free speech DENIED a citizen
to speak on a matter of GREAT public interest. So the rules had to be
suspended by Councilor Breanna Lungo Koehn so that the resident could
speak. The Attorney General’s office should study the tape of the
10/3/17 council meeting and see if Mr. Knight was annoying Councilor
Lungo-Koehn by making noises or shredding paper while another councilor
or citizen is speaking. It is another tactic that is vulgar, does not
serve the public, and is sophomoric behavior not fit for a civil society
which has a First Amendment, a right for the public to speak freely
without interruption. http://medfordinformationcentral.blogspot.com/2017/10/open-meeting-law-complaint-filed-on.html
What action do you want the public body to take in response to your complaint?
Adam
Knight must be sanctioned and removed from the Medford City Council.
Mr. Dello Russo and Mr. Caraviello should be sanctioned for
participating in Knight’s flagrant censorship tactics.
Adam
Knight’s ongoing abuse of the public, his use of parliamentary
procedure to stifle discussion of topics of great public interest,
voting on his own pay raise allegedly within three weeks of taking
office, using the city council to promote himself during elections with
excessive “congratulations” to people that are his friends (which takes
up precious city council time though those individuals appear noteworthy
only to Mr. Knight,) even having a campaign worker put his campaign
signs against a bus stop, allegations that he uses his government
computer at work to campaign for himself, allegations that he puts his
campaign signs too close to polling places indicate an individual who
makes up his own rules, maliciously harasses residents from the bully
pulpit and is, clearly, by the evidence provided above, not a servant of
the public but an individual who takes public monies to promote himself
and the agenda of other politicians who have the same self-serving
mission. Mr. Knight is a detriment to progress and must be publicly
sanctioned and removed from the Medford City Council.
