Why did Michael vote to give Paul Walkowski a 40% raise to write a report on how the City Council could evade the Open Meeting Law in an emergency late file that was so important that they couldn’t even hold a hearing on it, read it in public or have any discussion about it?
<
p>Did Michael review the report before the City Council sent it off to the AG, the DA, the MMA and the City Law Department?
<
p>Did Michael know that when he voted to give Mr. Walkowski a 40% raise that Mr. Walkowski was going to work 1/2 of 2007, all of 2008 and just a few days into 2009 and then retire thus getting 3 years in at his 40% higher salary for pension purposes for less than two years of work?
<
p>Since the City Council has received nothing back from any of these organizations, and has decided not to take up any action on any of the suggestions in Mr. Walkowski’s report thus meaning we the citizens had to pay for around $150,000 for nothing plus a 40% higher pension for the rest of Mr. Walkowski’s life, why doesn’t he move to eliminate that special position that was created immediately?
<
p>Thank you for posting on here and offering to answer all of the difficult questions we have wanted Michael to answer for years.
I am not a supporter of Kevin, and yet would still like to see an answer.
natashapsays
I apologize I accidentally posted the answer to this question under Ted. Sorry I am still learning.
<
p>As the Communications Director for Michael Flaherty for Mayor I am new to this community.
<
p>I will do the best I can to engage and answer questions every day. However, I also want to be as thoughtful as possible in my answers. This means sometimes I will need to research both Michael’s position and record before I can respond.
natashapsays
First, because there are a lot of questions I have decided to answer in one post. Second, I would like to apologize for submitting a full story within a post. As I said in my first post I am new and still getting used to blogging etiquette.
<
p>On Mandatory Drug Testing
<
p>Ted, your statement is not correct. First let me say that Michael supports unions and the collective bargaining process. This process has played a critical role in improving conditions, wages and benefits for workers in every field and discipline. Michael believes that mandatory drug testing is non-negotiable. In fact, he believes that mandatory drug testing should exist across the board for public safety employees and in particular, those using or operating heavy equipment, such as snow plows, school buses and street sweepers.
<
p>Flaherty on the issues
<
p>Michael Flaherty has released a number of comprehensive issue papers. Please check out our website to review. However, this is only the beginning. In the next couple of weeks we will be releasing papers on housing, development, health care and transportation, just to name a few. Policy development for Michael Flaherty has always worked the same way, as a City Councilor and now during his run for Mayor. It is a combination of his views, ideas and input from experts and constituents. Any thoughtful policy-work must have all of these things if it is to adequately represent the needs of all residents.
<
p>In response to HR Kevin,
<
p>As to whether people should be allowed to run if it is not an open seat, you and I have a philosophical difference. At the most basic level I believe that elections, and the dialogue they create, are good for government. I believe that the lively expression and exchange of ideas makes products, organizations and systems better. Nobody deserves their seat in office just because they have done a good job or not had a scandal.
<
p>I believe the 3 candidates vying for Mayor, Yoon, McCrea and Flaherty, all offer unique visions of how to make our city better. If you look on Menino’s page, not only does he not offer substance on issues, he does not tell voters what he plans on doing during the next 4 years. This, combined with his lack of desire to debate, should raise serious concerns in everyone’s minds. We as residents and voters deserve more than just good, we deserve better.
<
p>On the BRA
<
p>I am including a recent excerpt from Banker and Tradesman. I encourage people to read the full article to see where all three candidates stand on the BRA. In the next couple of weeks Michael will release his full plan for economic development in the City of Boston, including how the BRA should be handled.
<
p>
When It Comes To City’s development, Mayoral Candidates Spout Same Criticism,
by Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
03/09/09
Flaherty wants a separate city-planning agency because, he said, the BRA appears “incapable of performing its planning responsibilities.” He said he’d try to recruit corporate headquarters to Boston, execute a “true citywide and neighborhood-specific plan, based on the needs of the neighborhood, and stick to it,” broadcast BRA and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings on television and the Internet, and impose a “defined start and finish” to the Article 80 project review process.
Flaherty also pitched “a contract with the community” during development review, “where promises made are promises kept, and reasonable concerns of a neighborhood are reflected in the final submission.”
<
p>On Paul Walkowski
<
p>It is my understanding that Michael was not the President of the City Council at this time. I have answered to the best of my ability. For more detail on Paul Walkowski specifically, feel free to give Jon Romano a call as he worked for Councilor Flaherty at this time.
<
p>Now to your other questions
<
p>Michael supports wellness for all public safety employees. These are very high stress jobs and as a result have higher rates of cancer, heart attack and stress related job injuries than other city employees. Wellness programs are a “best practice” model used in the private sector to increase health, productivity, results and performance of employees.
<
p>Please check out our website for our full position on performance review, CitiStat and 311. Michael believes it is going to take a stem to stern review of all City departments and programs in order to see what is working and what is not. From this real data we can make decisions on what to eliminate, consolidate or improve. The goal is true cost savings and better results. As you are probably aware, Boston currently does not make this information available in a way that is easy to review or asses.
Obeying copyright laws is not a matter of “etiquette”. No one claiming to be a “communications director” should be able to claim ignorance on this issue. Did you just discover the internet yesterday?
<
p>
hrs-kevinsays
I have no problems with people running against Menino. It is simply that the bar is higher when you are running against a well-liked incumbent. You have to prove that voting for your candidate is worth the risk of giving up the current mayor. I don’t think you can really paint Flaherty as a reformer on the city council, so I don’t really buy into that theme in his Mayoral run.
<
p>Regarding the drug-testing issue, it seems that you are admitting that Flaherty and Menino’s position is identical on this issue. Do I have that right? Is the firefighter’s union going to be disappointed to hear this?
Natasha, thank you for your reply. As a follow-up question, does Councilor Flaherty support House Bill 2210, which reads:
<
p>
Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law, rule or regulation to the contrary, all public safety employees of the commonwealth or any municipality, and any emergency medical technicians, including those employed by a private organization or unit, shall submit to a random drug and alcohol testing program for those employees, which meets standards promulgated by the secretary of the executive office of public safety and security.
For coming onto LeftAhead. I enjoyed the hour immensely and was impressed with how well Flaherty did on the show. This should be a great race – I hope the people have as much access to the process and each politician, including the incumbent, as LeftAhead and BMG have had with your campaign as well as Yoon’s thus far.
natashapsays
We appreciate the opportunity and hope you will continue to host all the candidates on a variety of issues.
stomvsays
if candidates — or individuals working for candidates (for pay or free) would add that ‘disclaimer’ to their sig so that readers always have that additional context.
I gather that the figherfighters union has endorsed Councilor Flaherty. I am glad to see that the Councilor supports mandatory drug and alcohol testing for firefighters, but I am concerned when I read Edward J. Kelly, president of the union, suggesting that Councilor Flaherty shares his view that drug and alcohol testing ought to be part of the collective bargaining process. My question is: does Councilor Flaherty believe that it is appropriate to bargain with the union over the testing? Should the City make concessions in other areas (which is what bargaining is all about I suppose) in order to win union support for the testing?
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>TedF
natashapsays
Kevin,
<
p>Thank you for your question. I think dialogue is very important. I will do my best to answer your questions whenever I can. As you stated, the decision to have Paul Walkowski provide a report was a decision made by the whole City Council. There is no one currently serving in the position filled by Mr. Walkowski and no future plan to fill that position. I cannot address the elimination of that position as it is an issue for the whole City Council. In the future I look forward to discussing other of issues importance to the future of Boston, like education, youth violent crime, transportation and how the capture the global economy.
<
p>Natasha Perez
Flaherty for Mayor
natashapsays
Michael Flaherty has consistantly called for mandatory drug testing. The firefighter’s knew this prior to their endorsement in the Mayor’s race. I am attaching an article from the Globe written in 2007, by Donovan Slack for your review.
<
p>Council contenders split over drug tests for city firefighters
<
p>Several willing to take on union
<
p>Donovan Slack
The Boston Globe
<
p>Nov 01, 2007 20:00 EDT
<
p>Candidates running for four at-large seats on the Boston City Council are divided on whether the city should require firefighters to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and whether it should take on the powerful firefighters union.
<
p>Of the nine candidates vying for the at-large seats in the citywide election Tuesday, five said they would not approve funding for a union contract unless it included a provision allowing the city to conduct random testing.
<
p>Incumbents Felix Arroyo and Michael Flaherty said the firefighters’ new contract, which has been in negotiation since the last one expired in July 2006, should contain mandatory testing.
<
p>“I would want a uniform policy for both police and fire that includes testing and all available resources to help provide treatment for people in these high-stress jobs,” West Roxbury lawyer and candidate John Connolly said.
<
p>Incumbent Councilors Sam Yoon and Stephen J. Murphy disagree. Murphy said it isn’t his job to question union contracts, and Yoon said he supports labor unions, which historically have opposed testing.
<
p>The issue surfaced recently when autopsy results indicated that two firefighters were impaired when they died fighting a restaurant fire in August, according to two government officials briefed on the results. Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed at the time to demand testing in the current round of contract negotiations, and convened another outside panel to look into substance abuse policies in the Fire Department.
<
p>Positions on drug testing were among the questions the Globe asked all the candidates in telephone interviews this week, and they had similar answers on many of the issues.
<
p>For example, six said crime or youth violence is the most pressing problem the city faces. Six said the council needs to exercise more power, hold the administration accountable more often, or focus more on having an impact on city governance.
<
p>More than any other, however, the drug-testing question divided candidates. The council is responsible for reviewing union contracts negotiated by the administration and approving funding for their implementation. In recent years, city watchdogs say, the council has become something of a rubber stamp, approving funding for every contract without review.
<
p>“They also should be having hearings to fully understand what’s in the contracts, but they don’t,” said Samuel L. Tyler, president of the business-funded Boston Municipal Research Bureau.
<
p>An outside commission recommended several years ago that the city institute random drug and alcohol testing of firefighters, but the city has not implemented the recommendation in two union contracts since.
<
p>If the new contract does not include testing, Flaherty, Arroyo, and challengers Connolly, Martin J. Hogan, and David James Wyatt said they would not vote to fund it. Murphy, Yoon, and challengers Matthew Geary and William Estrada said they would.
<
p>The candidates also weighed in on Menino’s job performance and what they would do if elected to improve city governance and hold him more accountable. The City Council is designed to be the legislative check on the executive power of the mayor, with the council’s primary power being the right to reject the mayor’s annual budget.
<
p>Geary, a college student from Dorchester, questioned the mayor’s policies on development, and said he would use the council’s power to vote down land deals and projects that he felt were not in the best interests of average city residents.
<
p>Flaherty said that if he is reelected, he would push Menino for more funding of antiviolence initiatives.
<
p>I don't think the mayor realizes the gravity of the violence, crime, and substance abuse that is terrorizing our streets and neighborhoods,'' Flaherty said.The homicide rates are not going down, the gangs are not going away, and, yet, we are still scrambling for a real response that restores peace to all neighborhoods.”
<
p>Arroyo’s stance is similar. He believes the mayor is “too cautious” and said he would push for him to fund more antiviolence initiatives.
<
p>“I think there is a way where we can be very responsible for the budget but at the same time do more for prevention and intervention,” Arroyo said.
<
p>Wyatt, a former newspaper deliveryman from Roxbury, said he would question the mayor’s allocation of police resources as well.
<
p>“It’s possible that the areas of the inner city that are blighted by crime may not be served as quickly and as well as the other areas of the city,” Wyatt said.
<
p>Yoon and Connolly said they believe Menino often stifles constructive dialogue in an effort to avoid conflict and criticism that may become public, something they hope will change.
<
p>“I wish the mayor would listen to the council more because I think it would lead to more ideas and policies that would help families stay and remain in the city,” said Connolly, who said he would speak openly with the administration if elected.
<
p>“Disagreement and sometimes even conflict produces creative solutions and outcomes,” Yoon said.
<
p>Estrada, a meat packer from East Boston, said he believes the mayor is improperly influenced by real estate developers and big companies, to the detriment of average citizens. Estrada said he would try to organize working-class residents in an effort to combat that influence.
<
p>In addition to the at-large councilors, three district councilors will be fighting to keep their seats Tuesday: City Council President Maureen Feeney of Dorchester, and councilors Charles Yancey of Mattapan and Chuck Turner of Roxbury. In Allston-Brighton, Mark Ciommo and Gregory J. Glennon are vying for the district seat being vacated at the end of this year by Councilor Jerry McDermott. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Thank you for writing back! I think my question probably wasn’t clear enough. I gather that Mayor Menino also supports mandatory drug testing, and I’m wondering if the Mayor and Councilor Flaherty have identical positions on this. It seems to me that the union, at least, believes that the Mayor intends to impose drug testing without bargaining for it, while Councilor Flaherty is willing to make mandatory drug test one of the items on the collective bargaining agenda. Do I have this right?
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>TedF
hrs-kevinsays
Please don’t tell me that a “communications director” does not know you cannot simply cut and paste an entire copyrighted article into a comment. This is a violation of the Globe’s copyright (unless you got explicit permission from the Globe to reprint). Don’t do it. Instead you can quote the relevant portion and link to the original article.
I thought it would be obvious since my tag line is my name, not a pseudonym like Bob the Aardvark, but I’m happy to add that disclaimer.
<
p>One of the reasons that I’m running for Mayor is that I’m tired of politicians not answering questions about where they stand, or just as bad if not worse not answering questions about why they took a particular action.
<
p>To be fair, Councilor Yoon voted for these things for Mr. Walkowski as well, and the Mayor had to sign off on it. I have asked all three for why they thought it was so important to increase city council central staff by 8.5%, have that staff write a report on evading the Open Meeting Law, and do it in an ’emergency’ manner so that there was no discussion and the public wasn’t informed about the action.
<
p>None of them will answer the question. Even more striking is that now that Mr. Walkowski has retired that position is being left unfilled but not eliminated so that it can be filled at any later time without any paperwork being filed.
<
p>Michael has spoken about City Hall being smaller if he were Mayor. Well, how about starting with the City Council where he currently resides. If that position which got us nothing but long term financial liabilities was so important to be filled that it needed to be created in 1 day, you would think that they could do away with that position just as quickly.
<
p>It sure sounds to me like politicians talking about reform but not doing anything about it.
<
p>Kevin McCrea-Candidate for Mayor
stomvsays
No worries, and I really appreciate you adding
<
p>”Kevin McCrea-Candidate for Mayor”
<
p>to the bottom. It really does help BMG readership, and I suspect that it will also help you!
eury13says
Given the recent issues surrounding the MBTA’s plan to raise fares and the system’s crushing debt burden, what does Councilor Flaherty propose the city of Boston do to help the authority?
<
p>Menino, while supposedly supportive of the T, has been notably absent, and the Mayor’s office offers some weight to throw around when it comes to these kinds of issues.
natashapsays
Michael supports the MBTA doing a performance review of all its departments and functions to find savings prior to raising rates. Performance reviews are “best practices”, commonly used around the country to generate saving in companies and government. If we are serious about bringing down the state’s carbon emissions, we must do everything in our power to promote T ridership including keeping the cost reasonable.
<
p>Do you have a good idea for what the City can do better on this issue? Please let me know and I will pass it on to the candidate.
stomvsays
Want to know how Boston can help the MBTA? Use priority signalization for bus lines, Silver Line, and for the B and E green line. Simply put, this means setting up traffic signals so the approaching bus or street car gets the green light. Why does a bus with 30 people — or a street car with 150 — wait at a light so that eight people in 6 cars can turn left? It’s crazy. Give the MBTA priority green, and you’ll find that the rides are faster, the schedule is kept more consistently, and the bus (and B & E lines) will have more ridership at a lower cost.
<
p>Pretty straightforward. Definitely within the realm of the city. It’s not a change worth $160M a year, but it would slightly reduce MBTA costs while increasing ridership (due to more timeliness and faster trips), thereby increasing fare revenue too.
natashapsays
That is a very good idea. I will have our policy team look into the costs and impact of making that kind of change.
<
p>Natasha Perez
Flaherty for Mayor
hrs-kevinsays
What does it mean for Flaherty to “support” the T’s internal review? That sounds like a meaningless platitude to me.
<
p>And while I appreciate you coming to ask for ideas, you need to first convince me that your candidate already has ideas of his own and is not just fishing for people’s favorite issues to parrot back to them later in the campaign.
<
p>Despite protestations to the contrary, so far I am not at all convinced that either Flaherty or Yoon are not primarily running to satisfy their personal ambition rather than to actually change anything in Boston city government. If Menino were not running, that would not be much of a problem and I would be willing to support either of these candidates, but since Menino is still running and like most, I have been relatively satisfied with how he has done, there is no way I am going to vote for someone just because they feel it is “their turn” to be mayor.
goldsteingonewildsays
Lots of public officials and their surrogates post on BMG.
<
p>They claim interest in dialogue. But they post and never return. They don’t answer reasonable direct questions. I’m not talking about the vituperative stuff. They simply do not engage.
<
p>I think you should create two tiers of how you handle posts from public officials.
<
p>1. If they want to post and engage, then continue to reward them with front page.
<
p>2. If they want to post a press release and that’s it – fine. Simply don’t promote their stuff. Someone might check them out by reading the right hand bar.
<
p>If you could actually get people to do what, say, Deval’s chief of staff does from time to time, THAT would really elevate discussion on BMG.
Flaherty talks the talk — and sometimes not even that
<
p>BMG, thanks very much for holding these candidate discussions; I hope other media follow your example. Thank you also for asking candidate Councilor Michael Flaherty my question, as I wasn’t able to listen to the interview until later.
<
p>However, I see that he didn’t answer my question at all — he made no mention of what I asked: what was the deal he negotiated with the BRA in 2004 in return for that Council vote extending the BRA urban renewal plans? So, let’s give him another chance. Councilor Flaherty, please post your response to my question on BMG. And while you’re up, please answer a second question: The Council’s vote included a condition that the BRA fulfill several reporting requirements, including a detailed annual report of its urban renewal activities. The BRA has not met any of these requirements in five years, effectively stripping the Council of its oversight powers; have you initiated a proposal to rescind that Council vote?
<
p>BMG’s interviewers added a good question: What would Flaherty do about reforming the BRA’s structure if elected? He said he’d have their meetings recorded for replay so people could find out what actions were taken. BRA meetings are open, and minutes are already available, so that’s no additional help; anyway, the BRA makes sure that its meetings (I’ve attended many) provide virtually no information on what it’s actually doing. So Flaherty’s suggestion is certainly not a reform of the Authority. The BRA’s inherent structural conflicts, and its general obsolescence, are finally becoming widely understood, and both candidates McCrea and Yoon have said they’d get rid of it and give us back a normal, publicly accountable planning agency. Flaherty wants to leave the Authority intact, so that if he were elected he could benefit, as does Menino, from its unfettered powers to do the dirty work and keep politicians’ hands clean.
<
p>Finally, Flaherty dismissed my reference to his Open Meeting Law violations as something from the long-ago dusty past, a youthful error he has put behind him, saying he has shown his leadership qualities by accepting responsibility and changing his ways. In truth, the lawsuit filed in May 2005 (Kevin McCrea and I are co-plaintiffs) is not even over. It’s still in court, awaiting the final judgment. That’s because, instead of taking responsibility for his mistakes and admitting the violations at a court hearing within ten days of the suit filing, as provided by the Law, then-president Flaherty led the Council into a protracted defense, which was judged frivolous and without merit in March 2006, and then he filed an appeal; the legal fees have already cost the taxpayers over $200,000. In November 2008, when they finally admitted all eleven violations, they told the court that they respect the Open Meeting Law, and asked the judge to spare them an injunction (that way, they could violate again without risk of contempt citation). But in fact, Flaherty (and Yoon) had already violated the 2006 injunction in June 2007, by participating in a secretive meeting of the Council, held in a recess during a regular weekly meeting, apparently to pre-arrange an approval vote on — of all things — a pension abuse scheme (I wonder if his CitiStat would have caught that one…). They then proceeded to vote on the unread docket that amended the City ordinance, creating a new $70,000 position for a $50,000-a-year Council staffer to occupy just long enough to bump up his pension. What was the staffer hired to do in his new, upgraded position? To write a report on why the City Council should be exempted from the Open Meeting Law! This report, in the works for a year and a half and costing the taxpayers about $150,000 in salary, was revealed in September 2008; and it is still pending Council action. We plaintiffs learned about the secret meeting only in early 2009 while following the trail of the report, and we added a charge of contempt to our pending case. The Councilors couldn’t defend this meeting as lawful but refused to own up to it as a violation, at the final Feb. 24, 2009 hearing — and that’s just three months ago. Michael Flaherty is an attorney; he often mentions his experience as a prosecutor, to engender public trust. He should have led his colleagues to obey the rule of law. Instead, this is how he uses his legal skills — to protect back-room dealings and squander public money. This — and earning more in private legal fees at his real day job than his Council salary.
<
p>Michael Flaherty knows how to present himself persuasively; he sounds articulate, earnest and informed. His talk is about cost-saving efficiencies, a smaller City Hall (there’s another question: has he eliminated that sham $70,000 position?), doing more with less, transparency, responsiveness to the citizens, modern technology, looking to the future, etc. But check his record; his walk is old-school politics as usual, as I have observed for his ten years in office. Follow-up questions are usually needed to get past self-serving responses and probe the facts. Better, invite all four candidates and let them debate directly, asking each other questions. That will be very enlightening, I’m sure.
hrs-kevinsays
The BRA’s inherent structural conflicts, and its general obsolescence, are finally becoming widely understood,
<
p>Perhaps this is “widely understood” in some circles, but not by the Boston electorate at large, most of whom do not even really understand what the BRA is.
<
p>I think in your zeal over this issue, you have forgotten that most people don’t know or care about the BRA.
<
p>If you want to do something about the BRA, you must first conduct a public awareness campaign to educate people about the BRA and what you think its problems are. Otherwise, the issue has as much resonance as asking what the mayor is going to do about the color of your neighbor’s house.
Your reply did not answer the questions I posed, and your reply seems to use the excuse that ‘everyone else did it so Michael did it too.’
<
p>I will try and simplify my questions in BOLD
<
p>Why did Michael vote to give Paul Walkowski a 40% raise to write a report on how the City Council could evade the Open Meeting Law in an emergency late file that was so important that they couldn’t even hold a hearing on it, read it in public or have any discussion about it?
1) Why did Michael vote to give Mr. Walkowski a 40% raise?
<
p>2) Did Michael review the report before the City Council sent it off to the AG, the DA, the MMA and the City Law Department?
<
p>This is a yes/no question I can’t figure how to make simpler.
<
p>Since the City Council has received nothing back from any of these organizations, and has decided not to take up any action on any of the suggestions in Mr. Walkowski’s report thus meaning we the citizens had to pay for around $150,000 for nothing plus a 40% higher pension for the rest of Mr. Walkowski’s life, why doesn’t he move to eliminate that special position that was created immediately?
<
p>3) Will Michael introduce legislation to eliminate this position? Yes/No
<
p>I have some additional questions, and in the interest of fairness I will state in parenthesis where I stand on the issue.
<
p>4) The Firefighters Union is also pushing for a “Well Fitness” program where firefighters are given a bonus or higher pay for being in good physical condition checked on an annual basis. Does Michael believe that firefighters should get paid more to be in shape? [I do not]
<
p>5) Does Michael support the $25,000 raises put through the legislature by Dianne Wilkerson for the members of the licensing board (raising pay for the part time job from $60,000 to $85,000) [I do not]
<
p>6) Michael calls for a smaller City Hall-What programs or people would he cut? [I support cutting the administrative staff in the Boston School Department for example]
<
p>7) Does Michael believe that the current City Council rules regarding the Open Meeting Law are strong enough? For example, the current city council rules as explained in court by the attorney representing Michael and his fellow City Councilor’s allow for 6 councilors to meet behind closed doors to discuss a matter, and then for those 6 to go and talk to the other 7 members one on one so that a proposal can get fully vetted without the public ever knowing that a proposal was being considered. [I do not support this, and do not believe that 6 Council members should be allowed to meet behind closed doors to discuss pending matters]
<
p>Thanks again for being so responsive Natasha. I should mention that if anyone has any questions on where I stand on an issue they may contact me directly at http://www.kevinmccrea.com or of course, I occasionally post here as well!
How can our city can make it so the spirit is actually observed for a) sunshine open meetings principles, the spirit of b) freedom of information public records principles observed in practice in every department of city government?… and how appeals be made within the city government expeditiously?… rather than at the state level.
p>b.
Does having elections commissioners being employees in the office compromise the Elections Commission?…
natashapsays
We believe the City’s website needs a complete overhaul that will make it more user friendly and bring more transparency to Boston’s government. By making government data and information more accessible, we will be making it easier for residents to see for themselves how we are spending their money and what decisions are being made with regards to their neighborhoods and communities. Making government more transparent leads to a more efficient government, and makes politicians more accountable to their constituents.
<
p>Michael has been an advocate for online budget transparency and streaming meetings held by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) online, as a way to hold elected officials more accountable, make government more inclusive, and earn the public’s trust and understanding by allowing them to see how their tax dollars are being spent.
<
p>The same thing can be said for the election department. Data should be easily and readily available. If a resident wants to purchase an electronic public record (i.e. election results, voter list or voter activity report) online, it should be available for purchase at a reasonable fee. If you know of other “best practices” going on in other cities we would be happy to take a look at it as a starting point for this type of discussion.
<
p>-Natasha, Communications Director, Flaherty for Mayor Committee
p>Could you make available now?…
. Lincoln Smith’s compilation and other compilations listing the city boards and commissions.
natashapsays
The Mayor controls all content and documents available on the City website.
<
p>In the past we have called on the administration to release other documents and to broadcast ZBA and BRA meetings to make them more accessible to the public without success.
<
p>-Natasha Perez, Communications Director, Flaherty Committee for Mayor
Our Boston Public Library’s website needs to be made more universally accessible for people with computers of the last ten years. But the BPL experts require the newest computers of only a couple years sidelining those of us fortunate enough to have any kind of computer with a limited household budget. What can you do to get talented people to develop our BPL’s website?… so it’s more universally accessible to all like New York Public Library’s website and our Library of Congress’ website.
“We put it to you, members of the BMG community, to ask the difficult questions and make Michael prove to you why he is the best person for the job. I will be on BMG everyday making sure we doing everything possible to provide you with real, substantive answers to all of your questions.”
Why did Michael vote to give Paul Walkowski a 40% raise to write a report on how the City Council could evade the Open Meeting Law in an emergency late file that was so important that they couldn’t even hold a hearing on it, read it in public or have any discussion about it?
<
p>Did Michael review the report before the City Council sent it off to the AG, the DA, the MMA and the City Law Department?
<
p>Did Michael know that when he voted to give Mr. Walkowski a 40% raise that Mr. Walkowski was going to work 1/2 of 2007, all of 2008 and just a few days into 2009 and then retire thus getting 3 years in at his 40% higher salary for pension purposes for less than two years of work?
<
p>Since the City Council has received nothing back from any of these organizations, and has decided not to take up any action on any of the suggestions in Mr. Walkowski’s report thus meaning we the citizens had to pay for around $150,000 for nothing plus a 40% higher pension for the rest of Mr. Walkowski’s life, why doesn’t he move to eliminate that special position that was created immediately?
<
p>Thank you for posting on here and offering to answer all of the difficult questions we have wanted Michael to answer for years.
Just for the record đŸ™‚
I am not a supporter of Kevin, and yet would still like to see an answer.
I apologize I accidentally posted the answer to this question under Ted. Sorry I am still learning.
<
p>As the Communications Director for Michael Flaherty for Mayor I am new to this community.
<
p>I will do the best I can to engage and answer questions every day. However, I also want to be as thoughtful as possible in my answers. This means sometimes I will need to research both Michael’s position and record before I can respond.
First, because there are a lot of questions I have decided to answer in one post. Second, I would like to apologize for submitting a full story within a post. As I said in my first post I am new and still getting used to blogging etiquette.
<
p>On Mandatory Drug Testing
<
p>Ted, your statement is not correct. First let me say that Michael supports unions and the collective bargaining process. This process has played a critical role in improving conditions, wages and benefits for workers in every field and discipline. Michael believes that mandatory drug testing is non-negotiable. In fact, he believes that mandatory drug testing should exist across the board for public safety employees and in particular, those using or operating heavy equipment, such as snow plows, school buses and street sweepers.
<
p>Flaherty on the issues
<
p>Michael Flaherty has released a number of comprehensive issue papers. Please check out our website to review. However, this is only the beginning. In the next couple of weeks we will be releasing papers on housing, development, health care and transportation, just to name a few. Policy development for Michael Flaherty has always worked the same way, as a City Councilor and now during his run for Mayor. It is a combination of his views, ideas and input from experts and constituents. Any thoughtful policy-work must have all of these things if it is to adequately represent the needs of all residents.
<
p>In response to HR Kevin,
<
p>As to whether people should be allowed to run if it is not an open seat, you and I have a philosophical difference. At the most basic level I believe that elections, and the dialogue they create, are good for government. I believe that the lively expression and exchange of ideas makes products, organizations and systems better. Nobody deserves their seat in office just because they have done a good job or not had a scandal.
<
p>I believe the 3 candidates vying for Mayor, Yoon, McCrea and Flaherty, all offer unique visions of how to make our city better. If you look on Menino’s page, not only does he not offer substance on issues, he does not tell voters what he plans on doing during the next 4 years. This, combined with his lack of desire to debate, should raise serious concerns in everyone’s minds. We as residents and voters deserve more than just good, we deserve better.
<
p>On the BRA
<
p>I am including a recent excerpt from Banker and Tradesman. I encourage people to read the full article to see where all three candidates stand on the BRA. In the next couple of weeks Michael will release his full plan for economic development in the City of Boston, including how the BRA should be handled.
<
p>
<
p>On Paul Walkowski
<
p>It is my understanding that Michael was not the President of the City Council at this time. I have answered to the best of my ability. For more detail on Paul Walkowski specifically, feel free to give Jon Romano a call as he worked for Councilor Flaherty at this time.
<
p>Now to your other questions
<
p>Michael supports wellness for all public safety employees. These are very high stress jobs and as a result have higher rates of cancer, heart attack and stress related job injuries than other city employees. Wellness programs are a “best practice” model used in the private sector to increase health, productivity, results and performance of employees.
<
p>Please check out our website for our full position on performance review, CitiStat and 311. Michael believes it is going to take a stem to stern review of all City departments and programs in order to see what is working and what is not. From this real data we can make decisions on what to eliminate, consolidate or improve. The goal is true cost savings and better results. As you are probably aware, Boston currently does not make this information available in a way that is easy to review or asses.
<
p>-Natasha Perez, Flaherty for Mayor
I can also be reached at nperez@michaelflaherty.com
<
p>
Obeying copyright laws is not a matter of “etiquette”. No one claiming to be a “communications director” should be able to claim ignorance on this issue. Did you just discover the internet yesterday?
<
p>
I have no problems with people running against Menino. It is simply that the bar is higher when you are running against a well-liked incumbent. You have to prove that voting for your candidate is worth the risk of giving up the current mayor. I don’t think you can really paint Flaherty as a reformer on the city council, so I don’t really buy into that theme in his Mayoral run.
<
p>Regarding the drug-testing issue, it seems that you are admitting that Flaherty and Menino’s position is identical on this issue. Do I have that right? Is the firefighter’s union going to be disappointed to hear this?
Natasha, thank you for your reply. As a follow-up question, does Councilor Flaherty support House Bill 2210, which reads:
<
p>
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>TedF
Councilor Flaherty does support House Bill 2210.
Mayor Menino and Councilor Flaherty agree on an important issue!
<
p>Thanks, Natasha.
<
p>TedF
For coming onto LeftAhead. I enjoyed the hour immensely and was impressed with how well Flaherty did on the show. This should be a great race – I hope the people have as much access to the process and each politician, including the incumbent, as LeftAhead and BMG have had with your campaign as well as Yoon’s thus far.
We appreciate the opportunity and hope you will continue to host all the candidates on a variety of issues.
if candidates — or individuals working for candidates (for pay or free) would add that ‘disclaimer’ to their sig so that readers always have that additional context.
<
p>Just sayin’.
I gather that the figherfighters union has endorsed Councilor Flaherty. I am glad to see that the Councilor supports mandatory drug and alcohol testing for firefighters, but I am concerned when I read Edward J. Kelly, president of the union, suggesting that Councilor Flaherty shares his view that drug and alcohol testing ought to be part of the collective bargaining process. My question is: does Councilor Flaherty believe that it is appropriate to bargain with the union over the testing? Should the City make concessions in other areas (which is what bargaining is all about I suppose) in order to win union support for the testing?
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>TedF
Kevin,
<
p>Thank you for your question. I think dialogue is very important. I will do my best to answer your questions whenever I can. As you stated, the decision to have Paul Walkowski provide a report was a decision made by the whole City Council. There is no one currently serving in the position filled by Mr. Walkowski and no future plan to fill that position. I cannot address the elimination of that position as it is an issue for the whole City Council. In the future I look forward to discussing other of issues importance to the future of Boston, like education, youth violent crime, transportation and how the capture the global economy.
<
p>Natasha Perez
Flaherty for Mayor
Michael Flaherty has consistantly called for mandatory drug testing. The firefighter’s knew this prior to their endorsement in the Mayor’s race. I am attaching an article from the Globe written in 2007, by Donovan Slack for your review.
<
p>Council contenders split over drug tests for city firefighters
<
p>Several willing to take on union
<
p>Donovan Slack
The Boston Globe
<
p>Nov 01, 2007 20:00 EDT
<
p>Candidates running for four at-large seats on the Boston City Council are divided on whether the city should require firefighters to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and whether it should take on the powerful firefighters union.
<
p>Of the nine candidates vying for the at-large seats in the citywide election Tuesday, five said they would not approve funding for a union contract unless it included a provision allowing the city to conduct random testing.
<
p>Incumbents Felix Arroyo and Michael Flaherty said the firefighters’ new contract, which has been in negotiation since the last one expired in July 2006, should contain mandatory testing.
<
p>“I would want a uniform policy for both police and fire that includes testing and all available resources to help provide treatment for people in these high-stress jobs,” West Roxbury lawyer and candidate John Connolly said.
<
p>Incumbent Councilors Sam Yoon and Stephen J. Murphy disagree. Murphy said it isn’t his job to question union contracts, and Yoon said he supports labor unions, which historically have opposed testing.
<
p>The issue surfaced recently when autopsy results indicated that two firefighters were impaired when they died fighting a restaurant fire in August, according to two government officials briefed on the results. Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed at the time to demand testing in the current round of contract negotiations, and convened another outside panel to look into substance abuse policies in the Fire Department.
<
p>Positions on drug testing were among the questions the Globe asked all the candidates in telephone interviews this week, and they had similar answers on many of the issues.
<
p>For example, six said crime or youth violence is the most pressing problem the city faces. Six said the council needs to exercise more power, hold the administration accountable more often, or focus more on having an impact on city governance.
<
p>More than any other, however, the drug-testing question divided candidates. The council is responsible for reviewing union contracts negotiated by the administration and approving funding for their implementation. In recent years, city watchdogs say, the council has become something of a rubber stamp, approving funding for every contract without review.
<
p>“They also should be having hearings to fully understand what’s in the contracts, but they don’t,” said Samuel L. Tyler, president of the business-funded Boston Municipal Research Bureau.
<
p>An outside commission recommended several years ago that the city institute random drug and alcohol testing of firefighters, but the city has not implemented the recommendation in two union contracts since.
<
p>If the new contract does not include testing, Flaherty, Arroyo, and challengers Connolly, Martin J. Hogan, and David James Wyatt said they would not vote to fund it. Murphy, Yoon, and challengers Matthew Geary and William Estrada said they would.
<
p>The candidates also weighed in on Menino’s job performance and what they would do if elected to improve city governance and hold him more accountable. The City Council is designed to be the legislative check on the executive power of the mayor, with the council’s primary power being the right to reject the mayor’s annual budget.
<
p>Geary, a college student from Dorchester, questioned the mayor’s policies on development, and said he would use the council’s power to vote down land deals and projects that he felt were not in the best interests of average city residents.
<
p>Flaherty said that if he is reelected, he would push Menino for more funding of antiviolence initiatives.
<
p>
I don't think the mayor realizes the gravity of the violence, crime, and substance abuse that is terrorizing our streets and neighborhoods,'' Flaherty said.The homicide rates are not going down, the gangs are not going away, and, yet, we are still scrambling for a real response that restores peace to all neighborhoods.”<
p>Arroyo’s stance is similar. He believes the mayor is “too cautious” and said he would push for him to fund more antiviolence initiatives.
<
p>“I think there is a way where we can be very responsible for the budget but at the same time do more for prevention and intervention,” Arroyo said.
<
p>Wyatt, a former newspaper deliveryman from Roxbury, said he would question the mayor’s allocation of police resources as well.
<
p>“It’s possible that the areas of the inner city that are blighted by crime may not be served as quickly and as well as the other areas of the city,” Wyatt said.
<
p>Yoon and Connolly said they believe Menino often stifles constructive dialogue in an effort to avoid conflict and criticism that may become public, something they hope will change.
<
p>“I wish the mayor would listen to the council more because I think it would lead to more ideas and policies that would help families stay and remain in the city,” said Connolly, who said he would speak openly with the administration if elected.
<
p>“Disagreement and sometimes even conflict produces creative solutions and outcomes,” Yoon said.
<
p>Estrada, a meat packer from East Boston, said he believes the mayor is improperly influenced by real estate developers and big companies, to the detriment of average citizens. Estrada said he would try to organize working-class residents in an effort to combat that influence.
<
p>In addition to the at-large councilors, three district councilors will be fighting to keep their seats Tuesday: City Council President Maureen Feeney of Dorchester, and councilors Charles Yancey of Mattapan and Chuck Turner of Roxbury. In Allston-Brighton, Mark Ciommo and Gregory J. Glennon are vying for the district seat being vacated at the end of this year by Councilor Jerry McDermott. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
<
p>Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com.
Thank you for writing back! I think my question probably wasn’t clear enough. I gather that Mayor Menino also supports mandatory drug testing, and I’m wondering if the Mayor and Councilor Flaherty have identical positions on this. It seems to me that the union, at least, believes that the Mayor intends to impose drug testing without bargaining for it, while Councilor Flaherty is willing to make mandatory drug test one of the items on the collective bargaining agenda. Do I have this right?
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>TedF
Please don’t tell me that a “communications director” does not know you cannot simply cut and paste an entire copyrighted article into a comment. This is a violation of the Globe’s copyright (unless you got explicit permission from the Globe to reprint). Don’t do it. Instead you can quote the relevant portion and link to the original article.
<
p>This speaks very poorly for your candidate.
I thought it would be obvious since my tag line is my name, not a pseudonym like Bob the Aardvark, but I’m happy to add that disclaimer.
<
p>One of the reasons that I’m running for Mayor is that I’m tired of politicians not answering questions about where they stand, or just as bad if not worse not answering questions about why they took a particular action.
<
p>To be fair, Councilor Yoon voted for these things for Mr. Walkowski as well, and the Mayor had to sign off on it. I have asked all three for why they thought it was so important to increase city council central staff by 8.5%, have that staff write a report on evading the Open Meeting Law, and do it in an ’emergency’ manner so that there was no discussion and the public wasn’t informed about the action.
<
p>None of them will answer the question. Even more striking is that now that Mr. Walkowski has retired that position is being left unfilled but not eliminated so that it can be filled at any later time without any paperwork being filed.
<
p>Michael has spoken about City Hall being smaller if he were Mayor. Well, how about starting with the City Council where he currently resides. If that position which got us nothing but long term financial liabilities was so important to be filled that it needed to be created in 1 day, you would think that they could do away with that position just as quickly.
<
p>It sure sounds to me like politicians talking about reform but not doing anything about it.
<
p>Kevin McCrea-Candidate for Mayor
No worries, and I really appreciate you adding
<
p>”Kevin McCrea-Candidate for Mayor”
<
p>to the bottom. It really does help BMG readership, and I suspect that it will also help you!
Given the recent issues surrounding the MBTA’s plan to raise fares and the system’s crushing debt burden, what does Councilor Flaherty propose the city of Boston do to help the authority?
<
p>Menino, while supposedly supportive of the T, has been notably absent, and the Mayor’s office offers some weight to throw around when it comes to these kinds of issues.
Michael supports the MBTA doing a performance review of all its departments and functions to find savings prior to raising rates. Performance reviews are “best practices”, commonly used around the country to generate saving in companies and government. If we are serious about bringing down the state’s carbon emissions, we must do everything in our power to promote T ridership including keeping the cost reasonable.
<
p>Do you have a good idea for what the City can do better on this issue? Please let me know and I will pass it on to the candidate.
Want to know how Boston can help the MBTA? Use priority signalization for bus lines, Silver Line, and for the B and E green line. Simply put, this means setting up traffic signals so the approaching bus or street car gets the green light. Why does a bus with 30 people — or a street car with 150 — wait at a light so that eight people in 6 cars can turn left? It’s crazy. Give the MBTA priority green, and you’ll find that the rides are faster, the schedule is kept more consistently, and the bus (and B & E lines) will have more ridership at a lower cost.
<
p>Pretty straightforward. Definitely within the realm of the city. It’s not a change worth $160M a year, but it would slightly reduce MBTA costs while increasing ridership (due to more timeliness and faster trips), thereby increasing fare revenue too.
That is a very good idea. I will have our policy team look into the costs and impact of making that kind of change.
<
p>Natasha Perez
Flaherty for Mayor
What does it mean for Flaherty to “support” the T’s internal review? That sounds like a meaningless platitude to me.
<
p>And while I appreciate you coming to ask for ideas, you need to first convince me that your candidate already has ideas of his own and is not just fishing for people’s favorite issues to parrot back to them later in the campaign.
<
p>Despite protestations to the contrary, so far I am not at all convinced that either Flaherty or Yoon are not primarily running to satisfy their personal ambition rather than to actually change anything in Boston city government. If Menino were not running, that would not be much of a problem and I would be willing to support either of these candidates, but since Menino is still running and like most, I have been relatively satisfied with how he has done, there is no way I am going to vote for someone just because they feel it is “their turn” to be mayor.
Lots of public officials and their surrogates post on BMG.
<
p>They claim interest in dialogue. But they post and never return. They don’t answer reasonable direct questions. I’m not talking about the vituperative stuff. They simply do not engage.
<
p>I think you should create two tiers of how you handle posts from public officials.
<
p>1. If they want to post and engage, then continue to reward them with front page.
<
p>2. If they want to post a press release and that’s it – fine. Simply don’t promote their stuff. Someone might check them out by reading the right hand bar.
<
p>If you could actually get people to do what, say, Deval’s chief of staff does from time to time, THAT would really elevate discussion on BMG.
Flaherty talks the talk — and sometimes not even that
<
p>BMG, thanks very much for holding these candidate discussions; I hope other media follow your example. Thank you also for asking candidate Councilor Michael Flaherty my question, as I wasn’t able to listen to the interview until later.
<
p>However, I see that he didn’t answer my question at all — he made no mention of what I asked: what was the deal he negotiated with the BRA in 2004 in return for that Council vote extending the BRA urban renewal plans? So, let’s give him another chance. Councilor Flaherty, please post your response to my question on BMG. And while you’re up, please answer a second question: The Council’s vote included a condition that the BRA fulfill several reporting requirements, including a detailed annual report of its urban renewal activities. The BRA has not met any of these requirements in five years, effectively stripping the Council of its oversight powers; have you initiated a proposal to rescind that Council vote?
<
p>BMG’s interviewers added a good question: What would Flaherty do about reforming the BRA’s structure if elected? He said he’d have their meetings recorded for replay so people could find out what actions were taken. BRA meetings are open, and minutes are already available, so that’s no additional help; anyway, the BRA makes sure that its meetings (I’ve attended many) provide virtually no information on what it’s actually doing. So Flaherty’s suggestion is certainly not a reform of the Authority. The BRA’s inherent structural conflicts, and its general obsolescence, are finally becoming widely understood, and both candidates McCrea and Yoon have said they’d get rid of it and give us back a normal, publicly accountable planning agency. Flaherty wants to leave the Authority intact, so that if he were elected he could benefit, as does Menino, from its unfettered powers to do the dirty work and keep politicians’ hands clean.
<
p>Finally, Flaherty dismissed my reference to his Open Meeting Law violations as something from the long-ago dusty past, a youthful error he has put behind him, saying he has shown his leadership qualities by accepting responsibility and changing his ways. In truth, the lawsuit filed in May 2005 (Kevin McCrea and I are co-plaintiffs) is not even over. It’s still in court, awaiting the final judgment. That’s because, instead of taking responsibility for his mistakes and admitting the violations at a court hearing within ten days of the suit filing, as provided by the Law, then-president Flaherty led the Council into a protracted defense, which was judged frivolous and without merit in March 2006, and then he filed an appeal; the legal fees have already cost the taxpayers over $200,000. In November 2008, when they finally admitted all eleven violations, they told the court that they respect the Open Meeting Law, and asked the judge to spare them an injunction (that way, they could violate again without risk of contempt citation). But in fact, Flaherty (and Yoon) had already violated the 2006 injunction in June 2007, by participating in a secretive meeting of the Council, held in a recess during a regular weekly meeting, apparently to pre-arrange an approval vote on — of all things — a pension abuse scheme (I wonder if his CitiStat would have caught that one…). They then proceeded to vote on the unread docket that amended the City ordinance, creating a new $70,000 position for a $50,000-a-year Council staffer to occupy just long enough to bump up his pension. What was the staffer hired to do in his new, upgraded position? To write a report on why the City Council should be exempted from the Open Meeting Law! This report, in the works for a year and a half and costing the taxpayers about $150,000 in salary, was revealed in September 2008; and it is still pending Council action. We plaintiffs learned about the secret meeting only in early 2009 while following the trail of the report, and we added a charge of contempt to our pending case. The Councilors couldn’t defend this meeting as lawful but refused to own up to it as a violation, at the final Feb. 24, 2009 hearing — and that’s just three months ago. Michael Flaherty is an attorney; he often mentions his experience as a prosecutor, to engender public trust. He should have led his colleagues to obey the rule of law. Instead, this is how he uses his legal skills — to protect back-room dealings and squander public money. This — and earning more in private legal fees at his real day job than his Council salary.
<
p>Michael Flaherty knows how to present himself persuasively; he sounds articulate, earnest and informed. His talk is about cost-saving efficiencies, a smaller City Hall (there’s another question: has he eliminated that sham $70,000 position?), doing more with less, transparency, responsiveness to the citizens, modern technology, looking to the future, etc. But check his record; his walk is old-school politics as usual, as I have observed for his ten years in office. Follow-up questions are usually needed to get past self-serving responses and probe the facts. Better, invite all four candidates and let them debate directly, asking each other questions. That will be very enlightening, I’m sure.
<
p>Perhaps this is “widely understood” in some circles, but not by the Boston electorate at large, most of whom do not even really understand what the BRA is.
<
p>I think in your zeal over this issue, you have forgotten that most people don’t know or care about the BRA.
<
p>If you want to do something about the BRA, you must first conduct a public awareness campaign to educate people about the BRA and what you think its problems are. Otherwise, the issue has as much resonance as asking what the mayor is going to do about the color of your neighbor’s house.
Your reply did not answer the questions I posed, and your reply seems to use the excuse that ‘everyone else did it so Michael did it too.’
<
p>I will try and simplify my questions in BOLD
<
p>Why did Michael vote to give Paul Walkowski a 40% raise to write a report on how the City Council could evade the Open Meeting Law in an emergency late file that was so important that they couldn’t even hold a hearing on it, read it in public or have any discussion about it?
1) Why did Michael vote to give Mr. Walkowski a 40% raise?
<
p>2) Did Michael review the report before the City Council sent it off to the AG, the DA, the MMA and the City Law Department?
<
p>This is a yes/no question I can’t figure how to make simpler.
<
p>Since the City Council has received nothing back from any of these organizations, and has decided not to take up any action on any of the suggestions in Mr. Walkowski’s report thus meaning we the citizens had to pay for around $150,000 for nothing plus a 40% higher pension for the rest of Mr. Walkowski’s life, why doesn’t he move to eliminate that special position that was created immediately?
<
p>3) Will Michael introduce legislation to eliminate this position? Yes/No
<
p>I have some additional questions, and in the interest of fairness I will state in parenthesis where I stand on the issue.
<
p>4) The Firefighters Union is also pushing for a “Well Fitness” program where firefighters are given a bonus or higher pay for being in good physical condition checked on an annual basis. Does Michael believe that firefighters should get paid more to be in shape? [I do not]
<
p>5) Does Michael support the $25,000 raises put through the legislature by Dianne Wilkerson for the members of the licensing board (raising pay for the part time job from $60,000 to $85,000) [I do not]
<
p>6) Michael calls for a smaller City Hall-What programs or people would he cut? [I support cutting the administrative staff in the Boston School Department for example]
<
p>7) Does Michael believe that the current City Council rules regarding the Open Meeting Law are strong enough? For example, the current city council rules as explained in court by the attorney representing Michael and his fellow City Councilor’s allow for 6 councilors to meet behind closed doors to discuss a matter, and then for those 6 to go and talk to the other 7 members one on one so that a proposal can get fully vetted without the public ever knowing that a proposal was being considered. [I do not support this, and do not believe that 6 Council members should be allowed to meet behind closed doors to discuss pending matters]
<
p>Thanks again for being so responsive Natasha. I should mention that if anyone has any questions on where I stand on an issue they may contact me directly at http://www.kevinmccrea.com or of course, I occasionally post here as well!
<
p>Kevin McCrea-candidate for Mayor
How can our city can make it so the spirit is actually observed for a) sunshine open meetings principles, the spirit of b) freedom of information public records principles observed in practice in every department of city government?… and how appeals be made within the city government expeditiously?… rather than at the state level.
a.
How would you get Elections Commissioners to make available more and better information at http://cityofboston.gov/elections
<
p>b.
Does having elections commissioners being employees in the office compromise the Elections Commission?…
We believe the City’s website needs a complete overhaul that will make it more user friendly and bring more transparency to Boston’s government. By making government data and information more accessible, we will be making it easier for residents to see for themselves how we are spending their money and what decisions are being made with regards to their neighborhoods and communities. Making government more transparent leads to a more efficient government, and makes politicians more accountable to their constituents.
<
p>Michael has been an advocate for online budget transparency and streaming meetings held by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) online, as a way to hold elected officials more accountable, make government more inclusive, and earn the public’s trust and understanding by allowing them to see how their tax dollars are being spent.
<
p>The same thing can be said for the election department. Data should be easily and readily available. If a resident wants to purchase an electronic public record (i.e. election results, voter list or voter activity report) online, it should be available for purchase at a reasonable fee. If you know of other “best practices” going on in other cities we would be happy to take a look at it as a starting point for this type of discussion.
<
p>-Natasha, Communications Director, Flaherty for Mayor Committee
What can you do now?… as an official, to make available the information in City Council public records listed at http://www.cityofboston.gov/ci…
http://www.cityofboston.gov/ citycouncil/ citycouncilpub.asp
<
p>For example…
. Organization of City Government
<
p>. Document #10 and the other numbered Documents
<
p>Could you make available now?…
. Lincoln Smith’s compilation and other compilations listing the city boards and commissions.
The Mayor controls all content and documents available on the City website.
<
p>In the past we have called on the administration to release other documents and to broadcast ZBA and BRA meetings to make them more accessible to the public without success.
<
p>-Natasha Perez, Communications Director, Flaherty Committee for Mayor
Who in the Mayor’s Office is the person to talk with about releasing documentation?… on our city’s website at http://cityofboston.gov
Our Boston Public Library’s website needs to be made more universally accessible for people with computers of the last ten years. But the BPL experts require the newest computers of only a couple years sidelining those of us fortunate enough to have any kind of computer with a limited household budget. What can you do to get talented people to develop our BPL’s website?… so it’s more universally accessible to all like New York Public Library’s website and our Library of Congress’ website.