Councilor Ed Kennedy who has previously served on the City Council, showed some wisdom tonight regarding the resume issue and amended Councilor Elliot’s motion and the city council passed it.

On a 5-3 vote, the Council voted to approve a policy that the City Manager would forward a copy of the resume of the person being nominated to a board or commission but NOT the resume of all who applied.

However ANY City Councilor could go into the Manager’s Office and request to view all the resumes of those who applied.

What I don’t understand is Councilor Elliot. He has been on the City Council for 15 years and yet in the previous 13 NEVER presented a motion to get resumes.

Which made the following quite comical in my view. He kept repeating “how am I expected to make an informed vote on a candidate if I don’t have all the facts?”

Which may make a few people (Like me) ask the question – Is that his way of telling us in the past 13 all his votes to confirm candidates for boards and commissions have been uninformed votes?

Another thing that Councilor Elliot brought up is that he alleges Mr. Green (who was approved for the LHA Board tonight) son approached him to “lobby” for his father but felt he was a bit zealous and it was inappropriate.

What did he think would happen if councilors got all resumes in advance of an appointment and publicly on the council floor motion to kill that appointment?

The Sun would run puff pieces like they did for Mickey O’Keefe and many people would lobby councilors which is why plan E was set up the way it was to avoid this type of lobbying.

It will be interesting to see if Councilor Elliot (and by extension his buddies Lyle and the Sun Editor Mr C) move on to other issue or continue to beat this resume issue even more.

(and YES I know I am supposed to be studying, not blogging but I read while listening to the meeting and needed a break)

courtesy of The Boston Globe

I get the feeling Mike McLaughlin would in hindsight have rather left the Dracut Housing Authority alone then try to flex his political muscle against former Sen. Steve and other friends of DHA Executive Director Mary Karabatsos.

He unwittingly started a chain reaction so strong that it not only cost him his job and political career but he is taking Lt. Gov. Tim Murray and others with him.

In Today’s Sun Blog by Chris Scott titled Collateral Damage — Reprise he looks at the latest Dracut Elected official to get swept up in the McLaughlin fallout – Dracut Selectman John Zimini.

There is another rumors swirling around NOT in this Blog piece but one that says the Governor’s Appointment to the Dracut Housing Authority Board – Brian Bond is being asked or is about to be asked to resign from that post in the wake of the McLaughlin scandal by the Lt. Governor but no one is willing to comment on that.

Read the entire post but here is a short section to wet you appetite:

In Sunday’s extensive Globe story covering how McLaughlin raised money for Murray, deep in the story Zimini is mentioned. The story doesn’t, however, note that he’s from Dracut or that he is now serving his 4th-term on the Board of Selectmen.

According to the story, Murray once called former state Labor Secretary Suzanne Bump, angry that she fired Zimini because of his alleged relationship with McLaughlin.

The question of whether someone is a Public Figure

I still am very upset that a young woman’s name was dragged through the mud by the Lowell SUN and others because a personal matter was made public and the enemies of the Supt. leaked this young woman’s name.

Whether the people who scream for Transparency in Gov’t (as long has your politically connected pals aren’t included) agree or not I do not believe this young women who was working as a secretary at Greater Lowell was considered a public figure and think that the SUN and the people who leaked her name should be made to pay in some way for the damage this leak has caused the young women and her reputation.

Whether she did or did not mishandled funds, it was clear from an internal report that this person was found NOT to have criminal intent but felt that she was responsible anyway and she chose to resign because of that. Since no legal action was involved it appears to me to be a personal issue and that I don’t believe makes her a public figure.

Obviously I am neither A Lawyer or Qualified Journalist nor do I play one on TV/Radio or the BLOG but I looked up the “Legal Definition” of Public Figure and found the following:

On USLegal.com -Definitions

Public figure - is a person of great public interest or fame, such as a politician, celebrity, or sports hero. The term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions, where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has
to prove disparaging remarks were made with actual malice.

A person may also be considered a “limited purpose” public figure by having thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. The determination is made on a case-by-case basis, taking the particular facts into account.

This young woman didn’t willingly thrust herself into any spotlight or to the forefront but was placed there by Public officials during a public meeting that led to several personal matters being made public and directly resulting in the leaking of her name and NOT the names of other employees who also apparently mishandled funds simply because she was related to the Superintendent. I think it was wrong and the people who have leaked this young woman’s name should be ashamed of themselves.

I made an inquiry to the MA. State Office of the Attorney General to see if MA. has a standard definition for who is or isn’t a public figure. I was received the following reply:

“I regret to inform you that the Office of the Attorney General is unable to provide you with the legal opinion you have requested This Office is limited to providing opinions pursuant to G.L. c. 12, §§ 3, 6, and 9, to officials acting in their official capacity”

Thankfully Lowell and the surrounding towns have many qualified Attorneys so I asked a well known , well respected Attorney if the State of Massachusetts had a set standard of who is considered a public figure and about a persons right to privacy and when that right is lost. When does a private citizen become a public figure? Is an employee of the city, state or federal Gov’t automatically considered a public figure because they are paid with tax dollars?

The Attorney was kind enough to provide me with the above attached response and if I am reading it correctly the argument could be made that since her name was never made public by the School Administration because they consider it a personal matter, the question remains if the leaking of her name justify’s her being considered a public figure? Is a personal matter “News”? and if so, why isn’t the SUN trying to get the names of the other two employees? Hopefully she gets herself a good attorney and they figure that out.

However because she was a public employee and because the entire situation may be able to be justified as “News” because it involved a public school and it came to light at a public meeting, this young women may have no recourse.

Here are a few highlights from the response:

“That designation [public figure] may rest on either of two alternate bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.

Public employees, by virtue of their public employment, have diminished expectations of privacy with respect to the public records law