Friday, March 14, 2014

GREEDY CITY COUNCILS - New Bedford and Medford!

162,500 EXACTLY @ 11:36 am

http://medford.patch.com/groups/joe-vigliones-blog/p/greedy-new-bedford-city-councilors-keep-their-outrageous-pay-hike


On Tuesday night this Medford resident will be speaking on my petition to have the Medford City Council rescind its outrageous vote for a pay hike.   I'm also planning to give an outline for an expedited roll-out of a new Channel 3.


Last night the New Bedford City Council behaved as expected...badly.
Check this out to see greed at work:

NEW BEDFORD — The City Council voted 9-2 Thursday night to kill a motion that would have been a step toward rescinding a 44 percent pay raise the council voted itself in 2012.
The councilors voted not to send the motion to the Finance Committee, effectively leaving it dead on arrival.
- See more at: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140314/NEWS/403140318#sthash.HKGta9rq.dp...
__________________________________________________________
JV Point #1.  ON March 4th, when it was noted e to the Council that the Mayor does not need a pay raise, one of the councilors had the audacity to say "You don't know that."

Do NOT insult the intelligence of the people footing the bill.  Unlike Paul Camuso's good pal, not every resident is on food stamps, SSI and filing papers that he's indigent for an attorney, as with Mike McGlynn's good friend arrested and indicted by a grand jury for a false bomb threat.    Mike McGlynn praised that individual during a taxpayer-funded school committee meeting.  Shame on Mike. 

The rest of us either pay rent or own homes in Medford, and that funds the city council's ridiculously high paycheck. 

At $3700 PLUS per council meeting and having NO MEETING for 3 inches of snow, it is an absolute travesty when a paltry number of voters put in four individuals who put their own lust for cash ahead of the needs of this community.

Let's be more specific.  Didn't PauL Camuso say in 2011 that he wanted his pay raise to "give it to charity."  Hey, Mr. Camuso, charity starts at home: give the money BACK to the people struggling in this economy because, unlike your good friend that was on a non-profit board and violated the Internal Revenue Code to put YOU, Paul Camuso, on TV on a Friday night while harassing everyone else, unlike your pal, Mr. Camuso, some people have never taken food stamps or a free lawyer.

Those of us who are footing the bill have a First Amendment right to complain.  The Food Stamp/Free Lawyer fellow, Paul Camuso's friend, liked to talk a good game, but lacked the integrity to back it up.

LET's GO BACK TO NEW BEDFORD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED:
The meeting was tense at times after Ward 4 Councilor Dana Rebeiro and Councilor-at-large Naomi Carney proposed rescinding the raise — something Rebeiro had vowed to do during her 2013 campaign. She and Carney were the only ones voting to send it to committee.
Rebeiro said in introducing the motion that New Bedford has "one of the highest if not the highest unemployment rates in the entire state" at 11 percent. She said the councilors work hard and she did not necessarily disagree with a pay raise, but that the raise should be "based more equitably" on how long the councilors have been there.
Councilor-at-large Brian Gomes spoke passionately against the motion and said the pay raise was a non-issue, and that the motion "doesn't belong on the agenda." 
- See more at: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140314/NEWS/403140318#sthash.HKGta9rq.dp...

____________________________________________________________
It is called BLOOD FROM A STONE. 

The citizens of Medford work hard for every dollar.  Yes, some of the potholes on Garfield Ave have finally been filled, but does every citizen with the Grand Canyon in front of their home have to come up to this city council to get the job done? 

A Pay Raise?  Yet the council will sometimes pass the buck to the Mayor when it comes to things the council doesn't want to handle, like access TV.

They pass the buck to the Mayor, and in return, the Mayor wants them to pass lots of bucks to the Mayor.

If you love handing your hard-earned money over to City Hall so that Rick Caraviello and Adam Knight allegedly make their council job a huge part of their income rather than serving the public without wanting money in return, then don't read the rest of this.  If you think Freddy Dello Russo's hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the private sector (what does that dude make?  Half a million dollars on people's grief?) along with Paul Camuso's 70K at the Sheriff's office deserve another 30K of our hard-earned cash, well, you must be made out of money.

Just give it away.

Perhaps Mark Crowley, Jeanne Martin, Neil Osborne and Bob Fitzpatrick should join the city council and replace Camuso, Dello Russo, McGknight-0 and Caraviello, because if your name ends in "o" you are Santa Claus for Michael J. McGlynn handing him a nice fat pay raise that he absolutely doesn't need, money from the citizens that the citizens DO need.

Blood from a stone.  Watch the board member of TV3 who is on SSI (the regular Patch comment troublemaker) complain about this under his aliases.    He can afford to, because he's on SSI and decided to be a "write-in candidate" for Mayor.  Why not?  The Mayor's on SSI as well, Selfish, Sick, Ignominy.  That's what McGlynn's fraudulent pay raise is.
His own personal SSI granted by the fat cat City Councilors.


Citizens need to storm the castle and demand the Councilors rescind the Pay Raise. 


Each councilor should get $15,000.00

Mayor McGlynn  $75,000.00


That would show honesty and integrity.


Hey, Paul Camuso?  You still going to give your "raise" to charity? Or was that just a line?


Rescind the Pay Raise.  Show up at City Hall and tell the council they did a very bad thing in calling it a "rule of necessity" to pay themselves more of our money without any oversight whatsoever.


Watch the rock throwing begin because - once again - this writer is putting a spotlight on city officials who should know better.  Or is it "NO" better?