Waiting For Law Enforcement To Respond Is A Bad Bet 

 Is The FBI Investigating Surveillance Cameras Found In the Superintendent’s Office; Is the Inspector General Investigating The Mayor’s $40,000 Longevity Payment?

By Josh Resnek 

February 12: Construction worker at the Greystar construction site on Vale Street. (Photo by Jim Mahoney)

When two surveillance cameras were found in the ceiling of the Superintendent of School’s office on Vine Street, the FBI was called. 

That was three weeks ago. 

There is always a great deal of speculation and some confidence that the FBI will investigate, report, and if necessary, question and arrest perpetrators and for the US Attorney’s office to take them to trial. 

Three weeks have passed, and not a word from the FBI about whether or not the FBI is doing anything. 

Of course, those of us who have been in the forefront of reporting municipal corruption for decades understand this – the FBI does not tell us what it is doing. 

 The wonder about the surveillance cameras is this: is the FBI investigating how old the cameras are, their serial numbers and tracing where they were bought, and whether or not they were working and who might have installed them? 

 Is the FBI doing any of this? 

Or did the FBI agent who retrieved the surveillance cameras set them aside on his desk where they may be sitting right now as trophies because this is Everett and certain people are protected by the FBI in Everett? 

If we call and ask, the FBI spokeswoman most often replies: “The FBI declines to comment.” 

How about sending a request to the Attorney General’s office, as Councilor Mike Marchese did to get a decision from Maura Healey about the mayor’s longevity payment of $40,000 a year instead of what was mandated by the ordinance to be $2,500. He also asked the attorney general if the mayor owes the money he was paid. 

“Right or wrong?” he asked the attorney general’s office. 

He got a reply back. It took three weeks. 

The attorney general suggested that the city council request an opinion from the Inspector General or that it should hire an attorney of its own to get a proper legal opinion. 

It has been ten days since that request was sent to the Inspector General. 

The city council is floundering a bit without legal advice to make appropriate demands of the mayor to pay back the money that is believed to be owed. 

City Solicitor Colleen Mejia is too close to the mayor to make a reasoned, independent legal judgment. 

She acts more like a personal lobbyist for the mayor than a city attorney concerned with right and wrong. 

How does this translate? 

Members of the council have the audacity and the utter and complete spinelessness to say that it is up to the mayor whether or not he wants to repay the money. 

Obviously these responses are rubbish and should be treated as such. 

The world doesn’t work this way. 

We are also left to wonder how the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is moving along, or if it is looking into Priya Tahiliani’s 31 page complaint charging the mayor with trying to get rid of her because she has hired people of color, and because she is a person of color. 

She has charged the mayor with racism and sexism. 

Some people have told the Leader Herald the MCAD will not touch the suit, will hold onto it for a few months, and then say they are not moving forward with it. 

Why would the MCAD do this? 

Because important and powerful lawyers and law enforcement officials protect a certain municipal leader in the city of Everett. 

We must ask ourselves why the legal justice system makes every effort to disregard Everett. 

That being done, then we must complain loudly. 

As for the MCAD, maybe next year they’ll look into the Tahiliani racism and sexism allegations and let us know what it thinks. 

You don’t want to move too fast these days when you’re a public agency like the Attorney General’s office, the Inspector General’s Office and the MCAD.

Leave a Reply