– News about Quincy MA from Quincy Quarry News
Quincy City Council’s number one ward heeler continues to be dogged by allegations of improper double dipping involving taxpayers’ funds.
That and this is first story in the latest to be at least a two part exposé on this particular as as well as apparently chronically problematic Quincy ward heeler.
In the wake of a related Quincy Quarry story, a Quincy local posted on the Hough’s Neck Community Council Facebook site a video excerpt of the number one ward heeler’s being asked a tough question at the Quincy Republican City Committee candidates forum last month and so giving rise to a shitzsturm among this Facebook community.
While offering neither comment as to the production values of the excerpted video nor editorial comment on the commentary added to this excerpt from the candidates’ forum, Quincy Quarry is presenting the video below for all to see and then decide for themselves.
Posted by Mike Sweeney on Friday, September 11, 2015
The poster of the above video also posted the following comments in a separate Facebook post and which triggered an extended thread of comments.
“It is a violation of the law
Mrs. LaForest is breaking the law. Like her or not, friend or not, she is still wrong.
A former (Quincy ward, ed.) councillor, Peter Kolson, was reprimanded by the State Ethics Commission and they made him give up his salary in 1993 for the same thing as Mrs. LaForest (is now, ed.) and she took it a step further: she voted to fund her own 2nd city (subsidized, ed.) salary.
The State Ethics Commission and State Law is clear.
A municipal employee, including but not limited to a city councilor is prohibited by (Massachusetts General Law, ed.) Chapter 268A, Section 20 from having a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract made by a municipal agency of the same city in which the city is an interested party.
In addition, voting to fund your own position could be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
We elect people to serve our best interests not use the office we elected them to benefit themselves.”
Again, Quincy Quarry offers no comment as to the accuracy of Mr. Sweeney’s post; at the same time, the Quarry does have good reason to believe that an unknown to it third party has filed an ethics complaint against Quincy’s number one ward heeler over essentially the same above representations by Mr. Sweeney.
In turn, if such a complaint was – in fact – duly filed, the issues so apparently addressed deserve proper answers from the appropriate oversight entity.
Whether – or not – the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission will be able to offer its opinion on the allegations against Quincy’s number one ward heeler in time to be duly considered by voters before the upcoming November local elections remains to be seen, however.
Regardless, expect Quincy Quarry to continue to follow the trail of this ward heeler until this and other matters are duly addressed, if not also adjudicated.