Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
You might recall that I posted a long, video-enriched post recently about last week’s meeting and the scuttling of one appointment, that of Salmira Mitchell, and the passage of the other two. At the time, Rita tried (via an illegal motion) to say she was for shutting down all appointments by the outgoing City Manager:
But then went on, after being told she couldn’t make a brand new motion, to propose tabling Mitchell’s appointment to the library board. That passed 5-4. Right afterwards, they passed the next two appointments, 9-0 and 8-1.
Now, given that Mercier stated on the floor that her reason for tabling/opposing appointments was general (the outgoing CM should not appoint) and then subsequently voting to allow the other two appointments requiring Council approval, the only conclusion that can be reached is what Dick Howe wrote - that this was the work of vindictive bullies. Because the very sweet and civic-minded Salmira is married to the sometimes-acerbic civic-minded blogger Jack Mitchell.
Long observers of City Council have seen various floor rants from Rita that she hates bloggers. I keep trying to explain that the only thing on the table as far as questioning her is what she does and says on the City Council floor - in other words, she’s the arbiter of the depth of ire focused at her. We’ve never attacked her personally, or her family, if it had nothing to do with her public official self. Someone ought to tell her that you don’t get into politics merely to be beloved or popular, and that she is culpable for her her actions. I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.
Anyway, today on her normal Monday afternoon radio appearance, she came right out and copped to the “vindictive bully” part, says people who listened to it, saying something to the effect of, “I cannot reward a family whose member came after me.”
Um, what? First of all, as has been pointed out, giving of your time to a board is not a reward, it’s work. You don’t get paid. Of course, on the right sort of board with the wrong sort of appointment, like in the bad old days under Cox, it can be lucrative to your friends, but the Pollard board even at the worst of times was never one of those. (Planning and ZBA come to mind. Also, Conservation Commission, and maybe LHA…)
But that’s besides the price of tea in China. I’d like to point out that she deceived the public from the Council floor in the administering of her public duties - well, we already knew that, since she then went on to vote to approve Paglia and Malavich - and literally disguised her view about Mitchell and that particular appointment. She knew what that would sound like, and soundbite into, so she pretended it was an opposition to all appointments. At first. At least she admitted it on the radio…kudos to finally coming clean, I guess. But she lied. She lied to everyone. She hates Jack, for daring not to find her wholly beloved (and to be clear, my husband, who is generally pretty noncontroversial and mostly unknown, would get the same Rita treatment) and she took it out on someone who was NOT Jack because…well, because. It’s like watching someone stumble around with an adult body but with the motivations of a five year old. Like a baby-headed Death Eater.
And then she wonders why bloggers talk about her in less than glowing terms? Even if she had a legitimate grievance with bloggers, wouldn’t it look better if she was capable of taking the high road? And not take it out on the innocent spouse who stepped forward to serve her community?
Maybe if you don’t want to seem like a vindictive and mean person, you shouldn’t act like one? Just saying.
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Dec||Feb »|
40 queries. 1.042 seconds