OpEd to Medford Transcript - The Other Side of Mark E. Rumley 1-20-2020

1,523,162 @ 12:40 pm
1,523,139 @ 12:25 pm 
1,523,083 @ 11:05 am 1-20-2020
660 since 7 pm 1-19-2020

Medford Transcript

Letter to the Editor

...to enable the city government to operate at maximum potential with minimal risk.   Medford City Law Office Mission Statement

Exited solicitor Mark E. Rumley leaving the stage is a very good thing for the city, many believing that Rumley had as much power as former mayor Stephanie Muccini-Burke.  

Two recent puff pieces in the Medford Transcript reading like a Muccini-Burke administration newsletter were a disservice to the voters and residents of Medford, prompting me to write this response.

The core mission of a city solicitor is the "orderly operation and administration of local government," according to the Mission Statement of the Everett City Solicitor: "The City Solicitor advises and assists all city officials and employees in the lawful performance of their duties for the effective and orderly operation and administration of local government.

http://www.cityofeverett.com/165/City-Solicitor

As this writer has stated to the Medford city council in regards to access television, understanding the rules in our neighboring communities will help us build a more solid foundation for this city - and help us better interact with cities and towns in our region.

___________________________________________

Mark Rumley was a negligent bully who abused his office, disrespected the citizenry and is quite the opposite of the public persona the - thankfully - now former solicitor was out there selling like Colonel Tom Parker's antics squeezing every nickel that he could out of Elvis Presley.   The difference is big: Elvis enjoyed his alleged 50/50 partnership with Parker and they were in show biz, no oath of office, government mission statement, oath as a lawyer, etc. 

Elvis playing fast and loose with hundreds of adoring women - consenting adults - a little different from Rumley's playing fast and loose with those pesky "duties for the effective and orderly administration of local government."

That cost you, cable TV ratepayer, taxpayer, civic group, business, visitor to Medford, etc.

"You ratted me out to Joe Vig" Rumley is alleged to have said to a popular mayoral candidate.  The candidate saw Mr. Rumley, allegedly, conducting his own personal business on Thursdays in Somerville District Court.  Purportedly, Rumley was collecting bills for credit card companies, on Thursdays, when residents expected him to be doing city business.  Rumley had or still has an office at 271 Spring St. in Medford, Massachusetts.  I would know this: during a meeting with my old pal Paul Donato (we met circa 1973 or so...prior to Paul becoming mayor of Medford 1980-1985) at that address Paul told me that I was sitting in Attorney David Skerry's chair.  I jumped up as if frightened and Mr. Donato laughed "That's actually Mark Rumley's chair." (paraphrased.)

Now how does the Medford law office mission read?

"Law Department Personnel are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford"

I submit that Mark E. Rumley was unethical, self-serving, wore his unwarranted yet bloated ego on his forehead like a scarlet letter, and failed to uphold those "highest ethical standards," and believe that I have the facts and evidence to prove that Mr. Rumley had the lowest ethical standards for himself and bad actors like former city clerk Edward P. Finn and current city council vice president Richard F. Caraviello.

The facts are as clear as the sun in the sky this morning at 11:14 am.

_________________________________________________________________

Let's go over the Top 10 questions regarding Rumley's ethics, or lack thereof and why this information, certainly in the public domain now, wasn't discussed in the two Medford Transcript puff pieces

1)Did Rumley run his own business from Donato's office at the Somerville District Court and, if so, for how many years and - very key - how much money did Mark Rumley accrue during that time?

2)When this individual, Joe Viglione, got a Determination in my favor regarding misconduct by the Medford Police Dept, nearly a quarter of the force, why did Mr. Rumley call in the cavalry to try to stop a journalist from enlightening the public?

a)Chief Buckley had already disciplined the officers and the money, apparently, was returned.

b)the Public Records Division of the Sec of State's office goes by the assumption that all government documents are public records

c)Rumley's attempt to hide the names of the officers in question, and the taxpayer-funded L'Italien report, was hardly " Law Department Personnel  committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

Far from it.

Rumley went so far as to write to Marian Ryan, investigating the issue after Chief Buckley handing down the discipline.   Now I'm not a lawyer, but as a humble journalist my perspective was that if the discipline was handed down by the Chief of Police, you could have 500 more investigations, further investigating was no reason to block the public from its right to know.

Unless Mr. Rumley was hiding something.  

And my victory over the thankfully now removed solicitor ...oh, excuse me, "resigned" city solicitor, is proof that Rumley violated the mission statement of the law office he ruled like the wolf in the proverbial hen house, and possibly his oath of office - if not his oath as an attorney.  And if not in this instance, certainly in example #3.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

3)Determination on TV3, Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.

   Utilizing the law as noted by the Sec. of State's office in my victory regarding the L'Italien Report and police compensation fraud, the law was then applied to the Attorney General's office ducking we cable TV subscribers for close to six years.  For six years.  Finally we are going to get some material, redacted - of course - but some information that has been withheld from the public under the guise of "law enforcement might be impeded."  Well, you saw how that didn't work out very well for Rumley vis-a-vis the L'Italien report, and now the excuse isn't working for Maura Healey's office either.

   Rumley took it upon himself, probably with the shield that McGlynn appointed him, to investigate the very board that he was once a part of.   A former board member investigating the board he was part of and after all the bluster ending the investigation with a whimper would, to any sane and logical person, be part of a cover-up.
  

    And though I am not a lawyer, here's where this journalist believes it is a problem for Rumley and the word "ethical."  You see, Medford has a unique situation where the MCC TV3 contract cites that the city co-owns the TV equipment.

Police Chief Jack Buckley take note.

And the city co-owned equipment was used - allegedly - to make child pornography with an alleged 15 year old boy.

a)it is a simple matter to find out the minor's true age as the confidential informant told us where the boy worked, and when the alleged child pornographer and ex board member of MCC TV3 was allegedly evicted.  Take the date of alleged eviction and the boy's age and match them up.  The pornography was purported to have been made at the apartment where the ex-board member was evicted.

In typical ex-Chief of Police Leo A. Sacco Jr. malarkey, he and Sgt. Schultz know "nothing...NOTHING!"

b)this is not like West Medford Hillside Little League where the headlines screamed: Officials Found Guilty. Stanley Komins and Stephen Komins sentenced for stealing from non-profit."

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. co-owned equipment with the city.  West Medford Hillside Little League allegedly did not.

Thus, this journalist - who is not a lawyer - wonders about  the Law Department Personnel  committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

__________________________________________________________________

Top 10

1)Moonlighting, allegedly, at Somerville District Court
___________________

2)Unethically attempted to stop release of L'Italien Report
____________________________

3)Failure to investigate TV3 Medford in 2013 though Rumley promised the residents he would
_____________________

4)Failure to stop Frank Pilleri from squashing 2009 election vis-a-vis TV3, though Rumley had inside information
__________________________

5)saying Medford Housing a "separate body politic" yet tried to chill and squelch free speech at a board meeting where Rumley had

   zero jurisdiction
______________________________

6)told Judge Jackson-Thompson the city doesn't chill speech when it does. Liar.
__________________________

7)Gave legal advice to TV3 attorney when under subpoena from victim
_____________________

8)Went on witness stand defending a violent stalker and was removed for "irrelevant testimony"
__________________

9)Ed Finn failed to show up in criminal court under subpoena. So much for "highest ethical standards.

   Finn violently verbally and physically assaulted a victim, edited petitions by seniors, was a violent thug
__________________

10)Argued with Michael Marks at the council and was hardly utilizing "highest ethical standards."

We have lots more.  

Those are the ten most egregious at the moment.

Note to Mayor Lungo-Koehn - this kind of conduct is unacceptable.  

Hire a new City Solicitor and investigate Rumley

IF you are serious about cleaning up the Medford mess.  

Failure to do so enables McGlynn to undermine you and

to sabotage your administration.

__________________________________________________________________

 committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

Ya think?

 committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

YA THINK??????????

TO BE CONTINUED

Read More