Posted August 30, 2013 7:54 AM ET; Last updated September 1, 2013 1:40 AM ET
Cambridge MA has an image of being progressive since liberal is no longer a positive attribute. It is mostly all image. As Texans say, "All hat no cattle." The more things change the more they stay the same. On Thursday August 29, 2013 during an extremely horrible month I went to purchase some greeting cards at a local art store in Central Square. I passed the City Wide Senior Center where there was a hearing in progress of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I attended these meetings on and off for many years. Usually I see an attorney or a local advocate that I know.
Cambridge City Hall, City Manager's Palace
When I got there the board was on schedule hearing its sixth case, No. 10492, Petitioner's name listed as Amy Munsat. As I sat listening I noticed that there were five microphones set up for the five board members and one for the petitioners. The recording secretary or executive director had her own device connected to a laptop recording the hearing.
That is typical for at least 17 years I've attended those meetings. The only ones who can hear what is said are the board members and the petitioners who sit at the table. The board members, this time including Constantine Alexander (Not the Great?), who was chairing the meeting did not use their microphones. These are usually professionals many of whom have PhDs. And they are unable to use high tech devices which are purchased with taxpayer funds to allow the public to hear what they say and do. Moreover even if they speak into the microphones there was no amplification mechanism, no speakers set up for the audience.
Constantine Alexander, Chairman of the Board of Zoning appeals; Senior Counsel, Nutter, McClennen and Fish
There never is at those hearings. My many petitions to the City Council over 15 years fell as usual on deaf ears. Politicians seldom listen to anyone who does not give them money. The city has an electrical department which is available by request to set up speakers for the public at city board meetings. It does it for free and it is done at any reasonable hour. But the board's chair needs to request it or someone needs to do so. That is one of the standard "ways" that the City of Cambridge operates.
Over 17 years I never saw any electronic amplified speakers at the meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is the same with the Planning Board. A high tech expensive wireless mic system was purchased for the Planning Board which meets in the new City Hall Annex on Broadway and Inman Street. Ninety dollars per SONY microphone, plus the base unit. One of the long time members of the board speaks so softly that even with the microphone he cannot be heard by the audience.
Wireless SONY Microphone
Once I spoke during public comment at a Planning Board meeting and mentioned him specifically. It did no good. He continued to speak in an inaudible whisper. Often these highly educated board members have never learned how to speak into a microphone. It is not brain surgery. Then they also forget to turn their microphones on. It is all very humorous having all of the expensive equipment and highly educated human talent that lacks common sense. This is pervasive in Cambridge with Harvard and MIT. MIT is less mindless, maybe because they are mostly engineers. But at Harvard University common sense is a rare commodity.
That is not to say that people in Cambridge without a Harvard University affiliation have common sense. What about city employees, especially those with huge egos (also called narcissistic by the similarly afflicted psychiatrists, psychologists and acolytes), who run for office (am I being redundant?)? Almost all of the City Councilors, and department heads have degrees from Harvard University, are related to someone with a degree from Harvard University or they know someone with a degree from Harvard University. Harvard University does not teach common sense. They teach leadership at the Kennedy School of Government and at their Graduate School of Education, but that is like Steve Wynn's Mirage. It is fantasy.
One seldom-cogitated-upon fact of economics in Massachusetts (by highly educated people, uh, that should be, people with degrees from prominent institutions, which are heavily subsidized by tax exemptions and taxpayer money), is that education dominates the economy in eastern, if not the entire state of Massachusetts. Harvard University dominates education. No matter how little some people deserve a degree from Harvard University they have the credential. There are some people with Harvard University degrees who worship Harvard University degrees. They are credential lovers. Is there a prominent Harvard University graduate who was elected twice in recent years who exhibits the questionable value of a Harvard University degree by trembling over starting a fourth war with a country whose interests have minimal influence on the national interests of the United States? Just asking. Does this man who is worshipped by the media have a limited amount of common sense and believe the false fronted image his worshippers created? Is he a credential worshipper too?
The point I was trying to make is that public policies in Massachusetts are influenced if not dictated by Harvard University researchers, faculty and graduates. Did Harvard-University-created policies allow 60 or more homicides by an FBI protected crime family in Boston? The silence from the six law schools (Harvard, BU, Northeastern, BC, Suffolk, New England) in Boston, the government schools and management schools is a symphony. No one wants to talk about thorough corruption of the FBI, and the police apparatuses in Massachusetts. Politicians and academics focus on high school bullying and same sex marriage. Isn't that special? Are they any different than the lawyers who "don't do criminal law?" It will not and cannot get better without an intense scrutiny of law enforcement agencies. You cannot clean up the elected criminal class without an honest criminal justice system, which is absent in this state.
One of the (five) Massachusetts state court judges during the police frame-up in 1990 in Cambridge (joined by the Somerville police), said to me when I questioned, one of seven lawyers assigned and fired by me, that my lawyer was not doing his job. I did not suspect then that he (like all seven) was paid to not put on any defense. I just thought he was incompetent. I told that to the judge who said to me, "He's a member of the Massachusetts Bar like all other lawyers [in this court]." He was suggesting the credential of membership in the Massachusetts Bar Association, his license to practice criminal law, as the justification for his being competent. Huh? Was that judge a criminal too? Did he really believe that all lawyers are the same? Hello? Is anyone home in this court system? Is he too a credential lover, worshipper?
Pardon my diversion from Chairman Constantine "Gus" Alexander. Here are some of his credentials. Harvard Law School, LL.B., cum laude. Tufts University, A.B., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa. Member Massachusetts Bar Association. Included in Boston's Best Lawyers, 2011; The Best Lawyers in America (20+ years); Massachusetts Super Lawyers, 2004-2012; Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009; Super Lawyers Business Edition, 2011 & 2012; Gus was a law clerk to Wilson Cowen, the former chief judge of what is now the Federal Circuit of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is also past chairman of the Securities Law Committee of both the Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations, and a past chairman of the Corporate Law Committee of the Massachusetts Bar Association. He frequently lectures and authors in the corporate and securities law fields and has taught at the Boston University School of Law.
His experience makes it possible that Chairman Alexander is one of many lawyers who "don't do criminal law." When I was a student in law school I met lawyers who would say that, as if to make them a superior kind of lawyer. "I don't get my hands dirty doing criminal law. Ewww!" I did not understand why. If the law was the law what difference did it make? After many years I learned the difference. Criminal law practice means interacting with criminals. Who wants to do that? There is money in it. But it is often not worth it. People get killed by criminal clients and some lawyers get involved in the criminal activities.
The effect of these superior lawyers keeping their proverbial hands clean not doing criminal law, leaves that area of law to some very unsavory people. The criminal justice system is an interesting behavioral sink of human activity. It is a necessary part of any society to exercise control over its population. Laws are how it is done. At least until recently when psychiatrists began trying to take control from the lawyers. But that is another story too long for this blog entry.
So when one of the "I don't do criminal law." attorneys encounters one of the aberrations of the criminal justice system how does he or she react? "Get away from me!" is one pervasive reaction. Encouraged by non stop character assassination and a police frame-up using the shunned criminal justice system that keeps on giving, clueless credentialed prominent graduates of Harvard University shun such people and investigate them. Do they get secret government files written and composed by the criminals who run to criminal justice system? Were similar files used by the CIA to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003? Are they now using similarly manufactured files to justify attacking Syria?
Social critic Wendy Kaminer uses the term "cognitive dissonance" to describe how educated people "don't trust government to do much of anything right, except, it seems, arrest and detain without trial only those dangerous terrorists who deserve to be detained. Visions of government incompetence morph into visions of government infallibility when the subject is fighting terrorism. Fifty percent of voters favor smaller government delivering fewer services, (according to a recent
Pew survey); some rage against dictatorship in the form of universal health care; but generally the public has acquiesced in the creation of an expansive national security state that appropriates the dictatorial power to torture and detain people indefinitely, whether or not they've been found guilty of any crimes, or acts of war."
[source]
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/02/the-civil-libertarians-lament/36047/
It defies common sense how the mind works especially among intelligent and "educated" people. Kaminer adds “Knowledge is not power in criminal justice debates; knowledge is irrelevant.” If government files are faulty why are they relied on by police and investigators?
Does Chairman Alexander have common sense? Who knows? It was reported to me that Chairman Alexander is one of hundreds of lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, crime family members and associates, local and state police, and Harvard University faculty members who "investigated" me over the past 43 years. They do not explain to me why they did that. But I've been able to piece together some of the 43 years of character assassination, discussed in other parts of this blog, as the reason. One element is that all of the above persons plus FBI special agents and informants, spend a lot of taxpayer money generating propaganda. American citizens (especially journalists, politicians, and ordinary citizens) love propaganda yet are clueless of what it is, mainly, it is false.
One element of this 43-year character assassination campaign directed against me beginning in 1968 in New York when I was an undergraduate student, is that "He's a retired drug dealer." Two more include "He's homeless and mentally ill." No one tells me the details of the slander. I am confronted by obedient civilians who believe the lies and act on them. That is how I gather pieces of what is said about me. Unlike prominent celebrities, millionaire thug athletes, over paid politicians, and drug addled movie stars, I lack a PR apparatus to mitigate harm done to me, my career, reputation, social life, economic life and whatever else a human being has.
I do not have taxpayer funded PR flacks employed at Harvard University, local, state and US government mechanisms. I just have this blog and the few people who know me and knew me from before this abomination of government abuse began in 1968. Is Chairman Alexander one of the many who investigated me and then abused his personal and political power?
* * *
The Zoning Board meeting on August 29, 2013 proceeded with questions from the board members. I missed part of the meeting but was able to tune into the discussion when chairman Alexander asked if there would be an "impact on the street scape" if the petitioner placed an elevator in front of his home so that he could use it to enter his home. The owner uses a wheelchair. I do not know why or if it is permanent. But it is an opportunity to allow a person with a disability to enter his own home. Just asking the question shows insensitivity if not unlawful bias. Massachusetts state laws likely apply, also the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Typically here was a city Board violating the spirit if not the letter of a city ordinance. It is the same "Way that we do things here." as how the City Council ignores its own rules but uses them when convenient to censor unpopular and/or embarrassing speech.
I wondered if the period for public comment had passed. I did not know the petitioner, or the owners. I did know how the City of Cambridge acts toward the basic rights of access of persons with disabilities. I know how they treated me and others. Not only ignoring their obligations under city, state and US laws, but harassing people like me who asserted their legal rights. This is all a minor event in most places in this country. But Cambridge is run by holier than thou arrogant self centered, self serving politicians and officials. They say they are tolerant, but in the name of tolerance they are intolerant. They prioritize equal rights catering to prominent, wealthy people and friends of powerful persons. They ignore, ridicule and harass others. This is a pervasive pattern among long term elected and appointed city employees. I saw it myself and heard boring reports from others.
The Cambridge Disability Commission is run by a nice man who also uses a wheelchair. He is personable and knowledgeable about the laws on disability. He travels to Washington DC to consult with other disability advocates. But when it comes to confronting violations of law in Cambridge denying persons with disabilities, physical and legal access to buildings and accommodations, the best the Commission offers is training programs for city employees. When it comes to Harvard University violating access laws, his response was "We get along with Harvard." I was not surprised to hear that.
But I was shocked when I heard Zoning Board meeting chairman Alexander question the "impact on the street scape" of an elevator lift in the front of a man's home. When the Chairman asked if there was any public comment I stood and identified myself. I said it is outrageous that the petitioner is questioned about the "impact on the street scape" placing an elevator in front of his home to enable access to his own home. That that is even an issue in this city in this year is an outrage, I said.
I saw a similar event in a nearby town (Lexington MA) when their Board of Selectmen ruled "It wouldn't look good to have an elevator in the front of a public school." I wrote a letter to the
Lexington Minuteman asking if the Selectmen would say "It would not look good to see black people enter the building from the front." They recognized their misguided bias and allowed an elevator to be constructed on that public building.
How is that different from having an "impact on the street scape?" Chairman Alexander and Board member Brendan Sullivan asked if the petitioner could put the elevator or ramps in the rear of the building. That led to the owners pleading that it would be cost prohibitive due to the need to move the stairs to the basement and the stairs to the second floor in order to put the elevator in the rear of the building. Chairman Alexander denied he said it would have an impact on the street scape. It is on the public record. He raised the question, implying a negative impact on the neighborhood.
I mentioned to the owners after the hearing that "the penalty is the process." The fact that they needed to go through a difficult process applying for a permit, hiring a consultant, who prepared a report of about 20 pages in order to gain access to his own home was a punishment in itself. And for what? Because he needed to use a wheelchair? Is that a crime? For many police and politicians having a disability is a crime. The owners submitted a list of about ten pages of signatures from neighbors who agreed that it would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. How many hours did that take? And to add insult to injury Chairman Alexander took the original lists of signatures and did not provide a copy to the owners or to the petitioner. He said to them, "You can come to the office and get a copy." Will the city charge them for the copies at 20 cents or more a page? Isn't there a copier in the Senior Center?
This all reminded me of the five years of my life spent in municipal, state and US courts fighting an illegal lockout from a premises when my rent was paid. The courts were used for harassment and surveillance. Court clerks revealed they can do as much harm as judges. They file cases improperly or not at all. They divert briefs to private attorneys and pretend that a judge signed off of them. They sell well-researched legal briefs to private attorneys who are too lazy or too stupid to do their own research. One US District Court Judge wrote to me after three years telling me he knew nothing about the case filed in his court that I was appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States did not file my briefs as required under that court's rules. He resigned after I filed a complaint with the Chief Justice of that court, and the FBI. Supreme Court case law describes that period as "an exercise in futility." This year I read the phrase "penalty is the process" and realized it applied to those five years.
City Manager Robert Healy whose name is on the new police station, is praised for his many accomplishments. He is now a fund raising consultant at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Did he provide considerate treatment of Harvard University during his 31 year tenure? Is the Pope Catholic? One of his accomplishments is not mentioned. He was able to remain City Manager with little opposition for 31 years and he was able to keep the public mostly ignorant of what was happening. Only a few diligent, dedicated and courageous citizens attended early morning and late night meetings. They learned some of what was happening. On occasion the Manager and the City Council would hold meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Law and refuse to allow citizens in. The District Attorney had jurisdiction to enforce that law, but refused to act. Now the enforcement is with the Attorney General. It is the same person with a new title. Former District Attorney and now Attorney General Martha Coakley, is married to a retired Cambridge police supervisor. Does that have anything to do with why laws are optional in Cambridge?
Robert Healy, Long Serving Cambridge City Manager Now Employed by Harvard "Leviathan" University
In order to learn what happens at the Planning Board one must attend the meetings. Same with the Human Rights Commission meetings, the License Commission, the Hysterical, I mean, Historical Commission, the Police Review and Advisory Board, the Disability Commission, and City Council committee meetings. Some of the meetings are broadcast on the city cable TV station. I used to bring my camcorder to those meetings and video tape them. I edited them and posted them online on YouTube and other video sites including my blog. This generated fear among some Planning Board members who expressed their concern that "someone is videotaping the meeting." It takes a lot of time and no one was paying me. Worse still few expressed gratitude for my volunteer efforts. Some continued their character assassination joining the politicians and crime families. I stopped taping the meetings. Helping people generates the most intense animosity.
The previous cable TV franchise holder was Continental Cablevision. Included in the contractual agreement was a provision to make city buildings, e.g., the new City Hall Annex, and the City Wide Senior Center, cable ready, so that city meetings could be broadcast live on local cable TV. Cambridge has six cable TV stations. Six.
Cablevision never performed that element of their agreement with the City. When Comcast, the current provider and franchise holder, appeared before the City Council I attended the meeting to inquire if they would be required to perform that element of the contract. It was announced previously that Comcast would take on all of the obligations made by the previous franchise holder. They didn't do it either.
It is easy these days to do live broadcasts and live streaming with archives online. But it requires a will. The City Manager of 31 years, never wanted a transparent city. He was not interested in being held accountable for what he did. The new City Manager is into his third month. He was Deputy Manager for many years. He is unlikely to open the portals of city government to scrutiny. He indicates he will simply continue the same policies of the previous manager.
It is how "We do things here." as the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting chairman said to me on Thursday August 29, 2013. He said that his questioning of the petitioner for a variance to allow an elevator in front of his home was how "We do things here." He also said to me "You haven't been attending these meetings." He did not know that I attended the meetings before he was on the board.
Another one of "The way we do things here." was exhibited at the Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Alexander, after discussing the "impact on the street scape" made a motion to grant the petitioner's request for a variance. Under Robert's Rules of Order the chairman of a meeting is not allowed to make motions. If he wants to make a motion he must give up the chair and make his motion then return after the motion is made and seconded. He also may not speak for or against the motion. Nonetheless Chairman Alexander is correct, it is "How we do things here." meaning in Cambridge.
The City Council whose rules require their meetings to be run by Robert's Rules is unable to do that even after many criticisms by me, at their meetings during public comment. Even after an "order" was introduced in 2004 requiring the Council to learn those rules. But the Planning Board, the Hysterical Commission, and others all use the Alexander method contrary to good order. Chairman Alexander is a senior counsel at a major Boston law firm. Does the pervasive lawlessness among Massachusetts public officials derive from the leadership of the major law firms and law schools in Boston? It is "How they do things in Boston and Cambridge."
The cable TV stations are under used. Their employees are over paid. City taxpayers do not get good value for their tax dollars. What city taxpayer does get good value for his money? Not too many these days. The only way for city taxpayers to learn what is happening if they are unable to attend the hearings is to read reports from young under paid reporters at Gatehouse newspapers appearing in the weakly
Cambridge Canticle, I mean
Chronicle. Because these reporters are over worked they are unable to attend all the meetings and they seldom do more than a superficial report. That is more than anyone else does except for the students at Harvard University's student paper
The Crimson, and at MIT's student paper,
The Tech. They report on City Council meetings. The
Cambridge Day is an online presence too. Occasionally a volunteer at Cambridge Community television does some reports but mostly on City Council meetings which are mostly hot air. (The Council meetings not the reports.) But weekly TV volunteers talking about hot air?
Before she passed away a wonderful young lady used to write about the city covering it for the community TV station on her blog. I liked her for her sense of humor and rational reporting.
The Zoning Board voted five to nothing unanimously granting the petition to allow building the elevator in the front of his home. But why did he need to go through such a laborious procedure? Because "That is how we do things here." meaning in Cambridge. It is also the words of the establishment which sets the standards behind the misleading image of being a liberal, progressive and tolerant city. It is the same old intolerant bureaucrats who want to know why a man who uses a wheelchair, does not want to have to enter his own home from the rear entrance. Isn't that what the civil rights marches were all about? Didn't the separate entrances end in the 1960s? Was that for all people in the country or was that just for the Southerners? It is one more piece of evidence of how backward the City of Cambridge is behind its ultra liberal media image. Is Harvard University any different?
