Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!
 

January 30, 2012

Par for Caulfield

by at 11:36 pm.

Update: JfL hits it out of the park.

joe from Lowell Says:
Bud Caulfield is playing with fire. The LPD has spent a decade and a half building up solid relationships with the Cambodian community, as part of its innovative and successful community policing strategy. What’s despicable here is an effort to polarize the city between supporters of Nuon and supporters of the police for cheap political reasons.

So, I’m listening to the replay of City Life, this afternoon, when I heard former Mayor Caulfield describe current Councilor Vesna Nuon, as “despicable.” Maybe he meant that C.Nuon’s actions, standing up for his civil rights, was despicable. I can’t parse that closely, the word was shocking.

I texted a buddy of mine: “Bud called Vesna despicable on City Life” The answer was one word, “Par


Ensure you watch the whole thing. It’s 5:36 of civic trainwreck.

It amazes me how a former Mayor can speak with such faux authority on a subject that he clearly knows so little about. He speaks with utter disregard for the office from which he came. It was sad to watch. You have to consider this mindset was voting on our City’s business, just over a month ago. *exhale*

As it would happen, Councilor Nuon appeared last week on City Life. His approach to the issue was very conciliatory, looking forward with respect for Lowell’s Police. Don’t believe me. See for yourself, here.

Caulfield finished by summizing that C.Nuon was, “suing the taxpayer.” It just blows my mind that Caulfield could have it so wrong!

Worse yet, he speaks, somehow, for a “raw nerve” that is throbbing in Lowell. Clearly, the remedy is Preparation H.

12 Responses to “Par for Caulfield”

  1. Lowell Resident Says:

    Bud must be getting all his information on the case from Gerry Nutter…but seriously, this is kind of sad. While I know he’s not too popular on this blog, he’s had a long career, and you can question his ideas and his tactics, but he definitely cared about the city and that care was sincere and came across to the voters. I’ve said it a few times, I wouldn’t want a City Council with 9 Bud Caulfields, 5 Bud Caulfields or even 2 of him, but he did play a role and as long as we had other opinions on there I thought he did it well.

    The question is of course, how does he handle himself in his post-Council life. This isn’t a good sign, although to be fair, I do think he said the action of suing was despicable, not the man himself. Of course neither is really despicable, and its more of the blaming the victim mentality we’ve seen in recent weeks. (As an aside, I wish that Vesna’s critics would be more specific in what they are so upset over. Is it the settlement? Blame the city, they signed off on it. Is it the summary judgement? Blame the judge or blame the Constitution for creating a separate judicial branch. Is it the lawsuit? Blame the police who arrested him illegally according to the judge, giving him basis for the suit. The only thing I can really criticize Mr. Nuon for are his alleged actions that night, but thats not what seems to be cited. Besides that was old news, 3 years old in fact, and if people didn’t know about it, that’s pretty much their own fault.)

    But I digress, because this story is more about Bud Caulfield than Vesna Nuon. Hopefully he uses his platform as a respected former city councilor for the good of the city, which I know he cares about deeply, and not for settling scores or further diviseness. While I would guess Councilor Caulfied would sincerely believe replacing the City Manager is in the best interest of the city, I don’t think this is the propoer way to go about critiquing him.

  2. Jack Says:

    “to be fair, I do think he said the action of suing was despicable, not the man himself.” - LR

    I left that option available above, but this is a difference without a distinction, imho. Where is the logic that “good people” do “despicable” things. To act “despicable” is an incarnation of one’s inner self. Maybe that state is temporary? I may commit a “despicable” act in self defense. But, doesn’t the context of “self-defense” negate the whole despicability charge?

    Caulfield will not fade away. He is a show man in search of the limelight. Apparently, he is oblivious of the light he is cast in.

  3. joe from Lowell Says:

    Bud Caulfield is playing with fire. The LPD has spent a decade and a half building up solid relationships with the Cambodian community, as part of its innovative and successful community policing strategy. What’s despicable here is an effort to polarize the city between supporters of Nuon and supporters of the police for cheap political reasons.

  4. joe from Lowell Says:

    Juries don’t just go around giving out taxpayer money because the cops were mean to you. Juries tend to really like cops. This jury found the behavior in question clear-cut enough to render sizable damages, five figures - and there’s not a second in that 5:36 in which there is in evidence the slightest concern about the city’s actions on the night in question. They just don’t matter.

  5. Gerry Nutter Says:

    JOE,

    You are misinformed and mistaken when you say ” This jury found the behavior in question clear-cut enough to render sizable damages, five figures -”

    It was a $50,000 out-of-court settlement so there was no Jury and U.S. District Court Judge Sorokin rejected Nuon ’s claim that the city was negligent in its training and supervision of Kinney.

    The City settleted with Nuon because in many cases it is cheaper to settle than it is to incur the cost of a drawn out trial.

  6. Lowell Resident Says:

    Gerry is absolutely right that that there was no jury finding. But unless I am mistaken, I think he lacks any facts or firm evidence that the city settled *because* it is cheaper and its just another shorthand assumption that plagues this entire situation. It is quite possible that is the reason that the city settled. Odds are we’ll never know. But I’d refrain from making declarative statements based on assumptions.

  7. Jack Says:

    Gerry,
    Are you suggesting that the City handed over 50K to make it go away?

    You suggest you know why the City settled. But, then you rely on “in many cases.” So, you did the statistical analysis on this and set to blogging?

    I did some statistical analysis of my own. I figure the cops are pissed and will stay pissed. I, also, figure that there are political hacks using this event to seed dissention in Lowell. That petty, vindictive egomaniacs are fanning the flames to cause political havoc, hoping to hurt Vesna and the Mayor. Those hacks will pretend they care about the cops, but that ain’t why they are making noise. They are using the cops as props for shallow political chicanery.

    Lastly, that havoc, which I am blogging in, will drive a wedge between the LPD and the Cambodian community. Maybe we should let it go?

  8. Lynne Says:

    So LR, when can we have the pleasure of another blog post? :D

  9. joe from Lowell Says:

    Allow me to amend my remarks, then: the Lowell Police Department and the City Solicitor’s office don’t go around giving away $50,000 to anyone who comes along with a sob story about the police being mean to them.

  10. Lowell Resident Says:

    I warned you all that they’d be infrequent! Honestly I’m more comfortable commenting on the conversation than driving one myself, although I will get to another post soon. I don’t want to be a one-hit wonder on this Vesna Nuon topic. But at the same time as long as there are veiled accusations being made about the guy (particularly from another certain guy), I will try to steer the conversation towards the facts. I don’t what else is timely right now that I can speak with any sort of authority to, but when something comes up, you’ll hear from me. I may make a half a post on the D.A.D./ “anonymous bloggers” issue because I think there’s broad brushes being used. Ok, that’ll be it. Stay tuned, lol.

  11. Mr. Lynne Says:

    There was a settlement and there was no jury, but there was also a finding that (according to the Sun Blog) ” Nuon ‘s federal and state civil rights were violated.” in a summary judgement. Not pointing this out leaves the impression that the court didn’t actually get to judge anything.

  12. evelyn Says:

    Mr. lynne,

    You are correct that the City agreed to pay $50,000 in attorney’s fees to Councilor Nuon’s attorneys rather than litigate the issue of damages, courts costs and attorney’s fees.

    It is incorrect for others to say that there was no finding that the City was wrong. In fact, the Judge hearing the case had to assume (and wrote in his opinion that he did assume) that EVERYTHING Officer Kinney claimed was true, and that even then, the arrest was illegal.

    He also ruled that in addition to violating Mr. Nuon’s civil rights, Officer Kinney had committed an unlawful imprisonment - a criminal offense (Mass General Laws chapter 263, Section 2) which the Middlesex District Attorney could prosecute (unlikely he will given the working relationship). If Mr. Nuon were as vindictive, etc as Bud(weiser) Caulfield implied, then he would have filed a citizen’s complaint in Lowell District Court and asked for the 1 year sentence to be imposed.

    e-

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]


If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Politics Online

The Arts in Lowell

Trad Local Media

40 queries. 0.940 seconds