State Rep. Skeptical About Olympic Bid For Boston

MA State Rep. Tim Toomey

[From article]
So far, anyone who has dared to question the bid organizers has been met with answers that are the equivalent of “trust us.”

[. . .]
In Boston 2024, we see a small group of people promising us that we will all benefit from their success, and that once they have finished throwing a party for the world’s elite, the rest of us will get a crack at the leftovers the next morning. Those of us who have lived through the era of “trickle-down” economics — and who are still waiting, 30 years later, to see any benefit at all from tax cuts for top earners and deregulation of the financial industry — should be wary of this thinking.
[. . .]

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20141219/NEWS/141216316

Guest Column: Process for Boston Olympic bid is ‘deeply troublesome'
By Rep. Tim Toomey
Posted Dec. 19, 2014 @ 8:16 am
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Councilor Davis Hates Discrimination

Councilor Davis explains her concerns about discrimination. But she only mentions women and African Americans. Joining her colleagues on the City Council and especially the School Committee she omits people with disabilities. They are of interest only to the human services industry which provides goods and services to students with special needs and treatment without consent to those "poor unfortunates" (as Councilor Toomey calls), persons accused of mental illness.

She proudly mentions the report from the City Manager which promotes the notion of hiring quotas based on school population. 30 percent Black students? City must hire 30 percent Black employees. Huh? If the school was all white that would mean no Black employees. In one high school the population is 85 percent Hispanic. Does that mean 85 percent of the employees must be Hispanic? This is illogical thinking processes by elected officials. Are they products of the City schools which prohibit teaching critical thinking?

The new standards for hiring quotas is an example of Black greed, which knows no upper limit for demands and desires. Spineless officials submit to these irrational demands showing their lack of concern for equal opportunity to employment.

[From article]
"I abhor retaliation and discrimination in the workplace, particularly in our city government, and will always defend the rights of our employees to be protected at work.
[. . .]
We clearly value our diverse workforce.
[. . .]
A report we received tonight at the City Council meeting showed we are on the right track in hiring practices with good numbers of women and African American minorities in most job categories.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x671084598/Davis-I-abhor-retaliation-and-discrimination-in-the-workplace#axzz1cO5Q96Ku

Henrietta Davis
'I abhor retaliation and discrimination in the workplace'
Cambridge Chronicle
Posted Nov 01, 2011 @ 01:33 PM

Cambridge Official Wants to Know About Plan E


Ken Reeves is the longest serving city councilor. After 18 years he remains clueless about legal requirements of Plan E government. Instead of learning and reading the laws (he is a Harvard College, and University of Michigan Law School graduate), he wants to spend other people's money to study Plan E.

"We are at a place where we need to know what the sphere is limited to and not limited to,” Reeves said. City Councilor and state Rep. Tim Toomey said, “That’s incumbent upon us to know what the city charter is,” he said. “It’s 101 in being elected.”

Contrary to conventional wisdom (misconception) city councilors have no concept of laws Constitutions or even their own rules.

Commenting on this article, candidate Tom Stohlman says the power lies with the voters. Not when they elect spineless councilors.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1136015426/Reeves-wants-to-evaluate-Cambridges-Plan-E-form-of-government

Reeves wants to evaluate Cambridge's Plan E form of government
By Jillian Fennimore
Cambridge Chronicle
Oct 21, 2009 @ 12:25 PM

Not The Only City

Not The Only City

Councilor Toomey says removing Boy Scout collection boxes "had nothing to
do with politics; this event was politicized by the media, not by the city."
Imitating Bill Clinton Toomey suggests it depends on what the meaning of
"politics" is. (Tim Toomey, "Soldier on, Boy Scouts," Boston Herald, November
20, 2007)
He says, "I must remind those who are bashing Cambridge that we are the
first city in the state - and to my knowledge the country - that is offering
full salary and benefits to city employees who are overseas serving our country.
NYC provides full salary and benefits along with their military pay to city
employees. But they must repay (with hardship exceptions) the lower of the
military pay or the City salary when they return.
Councilor Toomey says removing Boy Scout collection boxes was "caused by an
apparent lack of communication." (His resolution (October 22, 2007; Resolution
36 "Urge all residents to participate in the Cambridge Boy Scouts Troop 45 and
Ship 45's Care Package Donation Drive to support our troops overseas.") carries
no power.
What was not communicated? It was not a City Council policy order.
Toomey states "Cambridge always has and will continue to support the men
and women from our city . . ." That allows them to ignore men and women for
other communities as far way as Somerville who fight for freedoms for the
moonbats in Cambridge.
Councilor Decker reads the names of the Killed In Action to oppose the war.
She exploits the deaths of men and women from other cities and states who fight
for her freedoms.
The City Council opposes the war because most of the Cambridge voters
oppose the war. The Councilors pander to whoever and whatever the cause, solely
to get re-elected. They have no beliefs other than getting re-elected.

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Soldier on, Boy Scouts
Donation drive OK in Cambridge
By Tim Toomey
Boston Herald
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - Updated 18h ago

In light of recent events on Election Day in which Boy Scouts Troop 45 was asked
to remove donation boxes it had placed in Cambridge polling locations to collect
essential goods for local troops serving overseas, I think it is only
appropriate to clarify a few matters.

First, it is important to note that although over the past five years there has
been heated debate about the wars themselves, Cambridge always has and will
continue to support the men and women from our city who have bravely put their
lives on the line for our country.

On Oct. 22, I sponsored a City Council resolution in support of Troop 45 and its
effort to support the Cambridge military deployed overseas. The City Council
unanimously approved the resolution and went on record commending the Boy Scouts
on organizing the donation drive and urging all citizens to support the effort.

Resolutions like this one reflect the deep support Cambridge has for its
soldiers fighting abroad. The people of Cambridge understand that supporting our
troops and supporting the war those troops are fighting in are often two very
different things.

While this is an extremely unfortunate event, it was caused by an apparent lack
of communication and understanding rather than the malicious intent of any of
the parties involved.

Although the Scouts had informed the Election Commission of their intent and
received encouragement from the City Council, the individual polling locations
had not been notified in time and therefore had not granted the necessary
permissions to Troop 45. The decision had nothing to do with politics; this
event was politicized by the media, not by the city.

I must remind those who are bashing Cambridge that we are the first city in the
state - and to my knowledge the country - that is offering full salary and
benefits to city employees who are overseas serving our country. To say that we
do not care about the well-being of our troops is preposterous. The Home Rule
Petition that I sponsored on behalf of the City Council is one of the most
comprehensive benefit plans for our brave men and women.

Since the beginning of the military involvement in Afghanistan, City Councilor
Marjorie Decker has read the names of fallen soldiers from around the country
released by the Pentagon that week at each of our meetings. We do this to honor
and recognize the supreme sacrifice these heroes have made on behalf of our
country.

I encourage all those cities and towns looking down on Cambridge to examine
their own policies and see if they are on par with Cambridge.

While I am saddened by the disappointing outcome of the Boy Scouts’ donation
drive, I have also been extremely impressed by their resilience. While adults
have become entangled by the perceived politics of the situation, these Scouts
have served as impressive role models to us all by pushing forward unencumbered.
If any good has come of this, it has been the enormous outpouring of support
they have received from across the country.

I’m glad this incident has brought their admirable mission into the public eye,
and I encourage everyone to continue to show their support in this season of
giving by donating to the Boy Scouts of America.
Tim Toomey is vice mayor of Cambridge and a state representative.

Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?

Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?

Citizen participation is essential even when the process is delegated to a
private not for profit agency. The reported actions of two City Councilors raise
other issues. (Janice O'Leary, "In this nook, too much affordability?" Boston
Globe, August 26, 2007)
All too often in Massachusetts the end justifies the means. Stopping the
development process to permit citizen input may result from unlawful actions by
two Cambridge City Councilors. Mass General Laws Ch. 43 Sec. 107 prohibits
direct contact between Councilors and city officials except for informational
purposes.
Asking the Planning Board to postpone their decision looks like a violation
of that law. The penalties are severe. But not many laws are being enforced in
Mass for malfeasance. Cambridge is a lawless city. Its academic leaders exploit
this flaw.
It is so pervasive now with one-party rule firmly in place that the
Governor openly encourages ignoring a statute that is inconvenient for his most
powerful supporters. This is a disgrace in a city which boasts of a prestigious
school of government and two international academic institutions.
What is being taught at these schools?

[This is an online copy of the statute. It may not be official, but it is
close.]
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 43. CITY CHARTERS
PLAN E.—GOVERNMENT BY A CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING A MAYOR ELECTED FROM ITS
NUMBER, AND A CITY MANAGER, WITH ALL ELECTIVE BODIES ELECTED AT LARGE BY
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Chapter 43: Section 107. Interference with city manager by council forbidden;
penalty

Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall
direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office
by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the
service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the
city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give
orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any
member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of,
any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and
upon final conviction thereof his office in the city
council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any
office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM


CAMBRIDGE
In this nook, too much affordability?
Residents decry 16-unit proposal for Windsor Street
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
August 26, 2007

East Cambridge residents felt the squeeze at Tuesday night's Planning Board
meeting, but that was nothing new for this group. They feel their elbow room
encroached upon daily in their part of town.

East Cambridge, with its estimated 71 people per acre, is the densest part of a
city deemed the fifth-densest in the country by some data crunchers. Residents
fed up with new housing creating more traffic, more noise, less space, and more
trash for rats to feast on let the Planning Board know it last week.

They crowded a second-floor conference room in the City Hall Annex, lining up
against the walls and overflowing into the hallway. There were no open seats as
they protested a local developer's proposed conversion of a former church into
16 affordable-housing units.

"We're not against affordable housing," said John Raulinaitis, who has lived in
East Cambridge for 79 years. "We're against housing, period."

Just-a-Start Corp., a 36-year-old local nonprofit organization, purchased the
Immaculate Conception Lithuanian Church property earlier Tuesday for $1.425
million. Many residents did not know the sale had taken place and were angered
by the way the nonprofit dealt with neighbors about it.

"I don't appreciate how they've handled the process," said Donna Barry, a
neighbor who said she was undecided about the proposed housing itself.

Just-a-Start made an offer on the property May 23, but did not meet with
neighbors until Aug. 14, just one week before the sale.

Regarding the lack of public involvement, the project's manager, Beatriz Gómez,
said, "We wish we had done a better job."

Vice Mayor Timothy Toomey and City Councilor Craig Kelley agreed and asked that
the Planning Board suspend any decision about whether to issue the nonprofit the
necessary permit to move forward with the conversion until neighbors and
Just-a-Start could hash out an agreeable plan.

The members of the Planning Board agreed to postpone a decision until neighbors'
concerns had been addressed.
[...]