"WE'RE ONLY GUILTY OF SLOPPY BOOKKEEPING" ALLEGED MONEY MANAGER AND DISGRACEFUL EX TEACHER TO THE CITY COUNCIL
From the AG's office, six years ago:
Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:26 PM
"....However, I can confirm that the Division still has not received any dissolution paperwork from the organization.
PUBLIC CHARITIES DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________
August 5, 2014 @ 10:11 am
_________________________________________________________________
August 5, 2014 @ 10:11 am
I
have spoken with an AAG and was told the Division is reviewing the
filing and working in the ordinary course to ensure that it is handled
in accordance with the requirements of M.G.L., c. 180, section 11A. In
the ordinary course, annual filings will be posted on our external
website. Other material filed is not posted but is subject to the
provisions of the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
Thanks,
(Public Records Division)
_______________________________________________________________________
"I'm here to make sure that this TV station is the best it can be for
ourselves and for our children," said
the Honorable Judge Marie O.Jackson-Thompson (retired)
ourselves and for our children," said
the Honorable Judge Marie O.Jackson-Thompson (retired)
_________________________________
From: Joe Viglione
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Charities (AGO)
Subject: Public Records Request regarding corporation #222488492
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Charities (AGO)
Subject: Public Records Request regarding corporation #222488492
SOME OF THE NAMES HAVE BEEN REMOVED - JV
Re: Massachusetts Public Records Request
Dear Keeper of the Records:
This
is a request under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M. G. L.
Chapter 66, Section 10). I am requesting that I be provided a
copy of
the following records:
1)---all
documents containing financial data regarding Medford Community
Cabevision, Inc. (hereinafter "MCC") that is NOT on the AG's
website or the Secretary of State's website, or available at Medford
City Hall or Medford High School.
SPECIFICALLY - THE $37,787 MONIES that are not justified in the August 2014 Medford Transcript article.
Where is that information regarding the 37,787 discrepancy?
2)All
documents containing financial data that the city solicitor claims is
not under the AG's purview. I believe it IS under your purview,
all of it (how can it possibly be separated and why) - so all documents
including but not limited to e mails, desk notes at MCC and City Hall,
phone records, documents between Rumley and his fellow board members.
There should be no "executive session" information denial as the corporation is dissolving.
If
Medford City Solicitor Mark Rumley claims that his investigation is
"not exactly" related, financially, to what the AG's office is
investigating, how does the office of public charities find an
impartial person to actually interview the board of directors of Medford
Community Cablevision, Inc. and get the financial records they
allegedly refuse to turn over?
3)All
documents internally at the AG's office from employees of the public
charities division as well as the employees of the full office
of the Attorney General in
regards to Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.
Along with being vital to the case, the lack of public action thus far by the AGO has added to the widespread and significant harm to multiple
customers of Comcast and Verizon in Medford. The AGO's failure to make public the information asked for in this records request could cause irreparable harm to Joe Viglione personally as well as to the Medford community.
The multiple customers are currently cheated out of access TV in Medford including in 2019, stemming from the multitude of MCC issues being repeated by the issuing
authority AND the current mayor, Stephanie Muccini-Burke. Mayor Burke, abusing her role as issuing authority and refusing to
facilitate programming as other cities and towns do outreach that encourages free speech, is conflicted.
The
issuing authority uses TV3 as her own platform, asking CORI checks of
other people running for elected office if they want a TV show.
Their "CORI waiver" is a form that insinuates innocent people are child
molesters.
How does that show impartiality the mayor, allegedly, took an oath to defend. Same with the solicitor, Rumley.
4)All
documents from the AG's office discussing Medford City Hall's conflict
in regards to public access TV issues, which is pertinent
to the Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. investigation
The very low standard set by MCC is now repeated by a mayor who refused to allow candidates for elected office on the airwaves prior to the September 12, 2017 primary election, and who now demands a CORI check on candidates and all residents if they want to do a television show; they also demand a signature on a five page "agreement" which is preposterous and flies in the face of access
television and the city's mandate, it's obligation to cable TV subscribers.
Had the AGO properly responded to my public records requests regarding the financial records of MCC and acted in a timely manner, the mayor would
not have replicated the ugly system installed by MCC to deny the multiple customers of the access they pay for.
I recognize that you may charge reasonable costs for copies, as well as for personnel time needed to comply with this request, however, as a journalist who publishes a city blog that has 1,308,988 page views as of 3 pm on Saturday, 3/30/19, I ask that any fees be waived as this is of great public interest.
The Public Records Law requires you to provide me with a written response within 10 business days. If you cannot comply with my request, you are statutorily required to provide an explanation in writing.
Sincerely,
Joe Viglione
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn MA 01888
EXHIBIT 1
* * THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ONEASHBURTONPLACE
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617) 727-2200
(617) 727-4765 TTY
www.mass.gov/ago
* January 8, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
* Joe Viglione
Re: Your Public Records Request
Dear Mr. Viglione:
I am writing in response to your public records request received on December 29, 2017
1 and made pursuant to the Massachusetts public records law, G.L. c. 66, § 10. Through an e-mail
to members of the Office of the Attorney General (“AGO”), you requested copies of: “all
financial data regarding Medford Community Cabevision, [sic] Inc.”
financial data regarding Medford Community Cabevision, [sic] Inc.”
Please be advised that certain records concerning “financial data” covering 2000 through
2014 for Medford Community Cablevision (“MCC”) are available onour website at
http://www.charities.ago.state.ma.us/charities/index.asp. These include IRS Forms 990, Forms
PC, and reviewed financial statements, among other things.
http://www.charities.ago.state.ma.us/charities/index.asp. These include IRS Forms 990, Forms
PC, and reviewed financial statements, among other things.
Please be further advised that all other records that may be responsive to your request are
being withheld from disclosure in their entirety because they relate to the Non-Profit
Organizations/Public Charities Division’s (“NPCD”) ongoing review of MCC’s Petition for
Dissolution. These records fall within one or more of the following exemptions from the
definition of public records under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26, as they are: (d) intra-agency memoranda
and communications that reflect internal deliberations and legal thought processes, or otherwise
demonstrate the AGO’s approach to similar cases, the disclosure of which would undermine the
AGO’s legal and investigative strategy concerning ongoing deliberative processes; and (f)
investigatory materials, including financial information, that are related to MCC and its
dissolution that are necessarily compiled out of the public view, the disclosure of which would so
1
See 950 CMR 32.03(3).
*
Joe Viglione
January 8, 2018
page 2
prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement by divulging the AGO’s investigative
strategy and techniques, and revealing the nature and sources of our information, that such
disclosure would not be in the public interest. Therefore, such records are being withheld from
disclosure in their entirety.
The public records law permits a custodian of public records tocharge requesters for
certain costs associated with responding to public records requests. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(d); 950
C.M.R. § 32.07. Further, G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii)(B) provides that no fees shall be charged for the
first four (4.0) hours of laborrequired to respond to a request. Because fewer than 4.0 hours of
labor were required to fulfill the request, there are no fees to be paid in this instance.
You have the right to appeal this response to the Supervisor of Records pursuant to
G.L. c. 66, § 10A(a), and to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a
civil action in the superiorcourt under G.L. c. 66, § 10A(c).
Sincerely,
Organizations/Public Charities Division’s (“NPCD”) ongoing review of MCC’s Petition for
Dissolution. These records fall within one or more of the following exemptions from the
definition of public records under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26, as they are: (d) intra-agency memoranda
and communications that reflect internal deliberations and legal thought processes, or otherwise
demonstrate the AGO’s approach to similar cases, the disclosure of which would undermine the
AGO’s legal and investigative strategy concerning ongoing deliberative processes; and (f)
investigatory materials, including financial information, that are related to MCC and its
dissolution that are necessarily compiled out of the public view, the disclosure of which would so
1
See 950 CMR 32.03(3).
*
Joe Viglione
January 8, 2018
page 2
prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement by divulging the AGO’s investigative
strategy and techniques, and revealing the nature and sources of our information, that such
disclosure would not be in the public interest. Therefore, such records are being withheld from
disclosure in their entirety.
The public records law permits a custodian of public records tocharge requesters for
certain costs associated with responding to public records requests. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(d); 950
C.M.R. § 32.07. Further, G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii)(B) provides that no fees shall be charged for the
first four (4.0) hours of laborrequired to respond to a request. Because fewer than 4.0 hours of
labor were required to fulfill the request, there are no fees to be paid in this instance.
You have the right to appeal this response to the Supervisor of Records pursuant to
G.L. c. 66, § 10A(a), and to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a
civil action in the superiorcourt under G.L. c. 66, § 10A(c).
Sincerely,
