And Then There’s Bayliss!
Lynne, “Tone Deaf” is a complement!
The Blog of Record reports:
Commissioner Walter Bayliss said the board does not believe the 2 a.m. closing hour has caused the string of crime in downtown. Bar-goers naturally congregate in a city such as Lowell, and the downtown is a typical destination, Bayliss said. Downtown bar and crime issues have gone in cycles over the years, and sometimes the community pushed for the License Commission to allow bars to extend business hours, he said.
But, if curtailing business hours is what the community wants, the commission is willing to do it with a condition: the City Council’s call for it.
“If (the City Council has) got the nerve to do it, we’ve got the nerve to do it,” Bayliss said.
Why is the License Commission hiding under the City Council’s skirt? Looks to me like the LC doesn’t want to perform their duties.
The License Commission adopts rules and regulations for licenses and license activity that address matters of local interst in compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and is the local authority for licenses effecting alcoholic beverages, public amusements, common victualler (food), second hand motor vehicles and entertainment. Three (3) members are appointed to a six (6) year term. Diverse political party representation is required. (MGL Ch. 4 s.12) Two (2) year prior residency also required. City Council Confirmation is required. Statute Reference: MGL C.428 Acts 1894; MGL C.138 s.10 .
To see for yourself how arrogant and obstinant Wally Bayliss is acting, please click here.
Bayliss won’t do his job, unless the Council gives him political cover. Who’s got nerve?
February 10th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Hey Mr. Bayliss, I kind of have a feeling that after last night, the City Council will most defintely be telling you to roll back the hours. I am equally sure that some of the bar people will be threatening a lawsuit or moaning that their business will go bankrupt. Rolling back the hours should go a long way to bringing downtown under control. I believe that there are more officers on the early night shift than the late night, which might help.All the out-of-towners can go cause trouble in their own towns. I heard the riot from beginning to end last night( this morning) and it was extremely scary. One call after another for back-up, for ambulances, and for the wagon and tropers cars to carry the arrest ed to the station. At the same time there was footchase downtown and a domestic.
Personally I hope that all 3 Commissioners hand in their resignations ( like that is really going to happen!)and that the Manager finds 3 people more willing to mete out heavier penalties.
February 10th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Jack, I could have sworn I heard Mayor Murphy say on WCAP this morning (talking to Teddy Panis) that the City Council canmake policy for the License Commission. Sounds like Mr. Baylis is telling him to go ahead.
February 10th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
You don’t think the LC is playing CYA? You don’t think the LC is playing the CC against “local businees?” You don’t see how the LC is setting up the CC against donors to local charities?
e-,
You know the scam. Don’t even front.
February 11th, 2012 at 1:54 am
Jack, it is difficult to claim to be “out front” and in charge and then be called on it. Looks like the LC managed to play Murphy’s game and make him live up to his boasts of being the person to set policy.
February 11th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Let’s talk about “looks like,” shall we?
Brawls cost Lowell restaurant its liquor license
(Myers, Jennifer. The Sun 16 Dec 2011 Archived Offline)
This “looks like” an appointed body that is playing favorites. Which, in these cynical times, is not good. The gossip of why a small commission would so blatantly skew their preference is less than flattering. So much so, it won’t be posted.
And it “looks like” Murphy was trying to ground a rogue commission in what the reality could be, should the LC unfortunately fall in love with its own hype, prancing around on it’s high horse.
“Looks like,” e-? Looks like the LC is going to get dressed down.
This could have all been avoided, meaning the palace intrigue, had the LC acted more like professionals and less like defiant brats. It’s folly to conject on whether events on the streets could have been mitigated. But, I’m quite confident that the LC will lay in a prickly, politcal bed of their own making.
February 11th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
e-,
Following up on this, “I could have sworn I heard Mayor Murphy say on WCAP this morning (talking to Teddy Panis) that the City Council canmake policy for the License Commission.”
I can’t confirm this, after trying. And, you are unsure. We do have this on the current CC agenda:
(emphasis mine)
It’s not likely that Murphy over asserted the role of the Council on WCAP, only to demure in the motion. Murphy suffers from a consistency in demeanor that may be unfamiliar to some in these parts.
So, that negates your point. Next?
February 14th, 2012 at 10:55 am
The SUN has a whole new chapter today.
Did Lowell License Commission violate Open Meeting Law?
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_19960329
February 14th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Did the License Commission (a part of the City of Lowell Law Department) break the open meeting law? Attorney Brian Akasian says no… Lowell Sun Reporter Lyle Moran says yes.
Lyle Moran broke the story on the LHA-City Manager-Building Department corruption scandal and is a top investigative journalist while Akasian now finds himself in the hot-seat trying to defend his actions. Let’s see him squirm out of this.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
e-,
Your comments here are scurrilous.
First, you misinterpret the Mayor’s comment on WCAP. Fabricating a false narrative that could only be dispelled when Teddy Panos posted the dicussion on Radio Replay. (Thank you, Teddy.)
Then we find you hiding the LC under the skirt of the Law Dept. Do you mean to say the LC is subordinate? The LC may be partnered to the Law Dept., but they are an independent commission. Why are you sheilding the LC?
Finally, this:”the LHA-City Manager-Building Department corruption scandal..” (bold mine)
What ARE you talking about? There is no corruption scandal! Do you mean to distract from the LC clusterf%&k by re-animating C.Elliott’s canard? Do you mean to taint the CM by suggesting “corruption.”
evelyn, you give anonymous bloggers a bad name.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Jack,
Lyle Moran did a good job in breaking the news about the LHA-City Manager-Building Department issue and is responsible for information finally being given to the City Council and the public. Whether you like C. Elliot (or not) or are in agreement with his motives (assumed, professed or otherwise), this did result in a benefit to the city residents.
As for the LC and the Law Department, I am not shielding anyone. I found this information in the PUBLISHED City Budget: http://www.lowellma.gov/newsitems/City%20of%20Lowell%20FY2012%20Actual%20Budget.pdf
See Pages 111 (achievements) and 119 (organizational chart) and it is clear the the LC is a direct section of the law Department and reports directly to the City Solicitor. The LC work, statistics, etc are all reported under the Law Department as opposed to the Election Commission which has a separate breakout section. The budget is signed by the CM on page 7, so I assumed it was factually accurate before signing and publishing.
If you have more insider knowledge about how things work in City Hall (do they not know what they are signing or is it not meant to be accurate?), please share. You seem to be the political insider. Why are you shielding Akasian?
February 14th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Jack,
Maybe my ears weren’t working… but it sounded like Mr. Murphy said (between 09:00 and 09:05)that the City Council can certainly make policy recommendations to the License Commission. I stand by my original statement that it sounded like Mr. Bayless was responding saying ‘go ahead’ when he published his manifesto. I do not find that scurrilous.
February 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Oh, evelyn…
Clearly you are a pro-business attorney with an arcane knowledge of the LC, who hates the CM and the cops.
If you are not Akasian, yourself, who are you?
There is no Evelyn Maddox in the Lowell voter file. Your moniker is a facade for your scurrilous commenting. You present things here and elsewhere that are misleading and distracting from solutions.
Stand up and be counted.
February 14th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Jack,
Thanks for the compliment or insult about being a pro-business attorney, but I’m not. I do have more than a college education though and worked in a library long enough to learn how to do research.
My “moniker” is evelyn. You are correct that I haven’t been a Maddox for years now(But don’t you think it is a little creepy that you search voter roles to check out women ? )
It’s unfortunate that you violate your own rules [Mail (will not be published)] but that goes to character and veracity - not something a political insider-spokesman like you seems big on.
I’m not sure why you decided to attribute an anti-cop label. Maybe you want to paint yourself as the sexy law and order type of man and anyone who disagrees with “Jack” must be evil? Maybe you really don’t want anyone to freely question authority.
Things were so much easier in the beginning of our relationship when you simply played Censor to edit any comments you disagreed with.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
You outed yourself, using your full “name” on Topix. To, you know, disingenuously attack Jack by inferring he was some sort of sick pedophile perv, despite the easily-understood fact that his use of the phrase “incest is best” was in reference to the GOB network and politics in Lowell, NOT children, and it was ridiculous to assert otherwise. Or do you not remember?
YOU were the one to use the term “email” not Jack, who just used your “last name.” Which you’ve used publically before, as mentioned.
You are the one skating on thin ice. Jack may have slipped on using your last name on this thread, but the fact is, that’s been publically known since January. It is, in fact, highly likely to be a pseudonym. And if you are unhappy that your name (if indeed it is) might be in the easily accessible voter database and that people can do a search…well, you have bigger problems than moonlighting as a woman scared of 6pm City Hall License Commission meetings and stupidly accusing people of being pedophiles on public forums, on websites with and without your “last name.”
Remember, we can match IP addresses in the administrative backend. We’re not stupid. Remember how Jack managed to find an astroturfer in the past (a la MacDonald)? Yeah. That. There are weird coincidences attached to your comments and honestly, I do not think you want us to talk about them here. Because considering the weird positions you are taking, the threads you are posting the most on, and the increasingly shrill commentary on those posts, added up to the evidence of IPs on the back end…just sayin’. Not that it’s conclusive evidence and of course we acknowldge that caveat, but.
Your credibility was already pretty much zero on this site posting as “Evelyn.” I would advise caution. I don’t agree totally on the tone Jack took in dealing with you, but I am exceedingly tired of the bullshit. You’ve got your warning. You only get one of those. Honestly, I should have banned you when you started throwing around accusations of pedophila, albeit that being on other forumns. Posting on this website is a privilege, I own the domain and the hosting, and I value Jack’s contribution far, far more than yours.
February 15th, 2012 at 7:11 am
Let us just clarify this, the License Commission is NOT a part of the City of Lowell Law Department in any form. License Commissions are “quasi judicial bodies” with a unique relationship to the city/municipality in which they operate. This is one of the confusing aspects of relations between License Commissions, municipal governments and citizens. Here are the questions I posed to the City Council yesterday through the City’s on line communication function. I think clarity on the “facts” of responsibility and accountability will improve the utility of the discussion tomorrow:
Please, at this evenings meeting and thus, in advance of the public meeting on Thursday, take time to have the City Solicitor or other knowledgeable individual describe clearly the authority of the License Commission with respect to granting liquor licenses, establishing hours of operation, overseeing operations, identifying infractions and closing or otherwise curtailing establishment operations.
I expect that I am representative of most individuals in not knowing the legal authority, responsibilities or limitations on the License Commission. For example, is it the responsibility of the License Commission to establish hours of operation or is this the responsibility of the City Council, as suggested by the comments of Chairman Bayliss?
To whom is the License Commission legally responsible (not morally, which may be a different matter)? What body oversees, regulates and, if appropriate, reprimands the License Commission?
Clarity on these straightforward legal matters would be helpful for the continuing discussion.
Please note that, by direct email, I will copy this message to City Manager Lynch, LDNA President Kathleen Marcin and other interested parties.
February 15th, 2012 at 7:42 am
I should have noted specifically my use of the word “Commission” as opposed to Commissioners. The individual Commissioners are appointed by some one/body of the municipality in which that License Commission then operates. This appointment authority does not equate to oversight authority with respect to the License Commission and may not even to the individual Commissioner. Once appointed, it is entirely unclear to me if a Commissioner can be removed before his or her term is up.
All of which, I believe, adds to the confusion on responsibility, oversight and authority.
I imagine (and this is guessing) that there was an intention with in MA law to separate political influence pressures from performance of task (license and oversee liquor establishments). But I am well out of my depth here, thus the request (moving quickly to plea!) to those more knowledgeable (City Council and City Solicitor) to spell out the legal facts of “who’s on first”!
February 15th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
All in all, it totally seems like a cluster-you-know-what.
I guess in theory, an “autonomous” LC is supposed to be able to make its decisions without the influence of politicos on the Council or even the CM.
In practice…in this instance, at least…