Tags: 
Image via Canva
— News and commentary about elsewhere covered by Quincy Quarry News
Facing another haircut?
An still image from a YouTube video
Mayor Thomas Koch’s plans to see himself an 89% raise that would make him one of the highest paid mayors in the United States is facing a closing arguments hearing today for a lawsuit over the City Clerk’s rejections of a voters petition to seek a serious haircut of the pending raise.
Needless to say, with today a Friday the Thirteenth, such poses intriguing karmic angles.
The plaintiffs — essentially those behind the petition — have argued that the City Clerk was overly persnickety certifying signatures in support of a ballot question petition seeking that the fat raise be trimmed to an increase consistent with the far more modest raises given to rank and file city employees.
Soon to be sad?
A Quincy Quarry News file photo
Arguments made by the plaintiffs’ council to date are that the City Clerk’s signature review protocol was variously at odds with applicable state law and regulations as well as local criteria.
Conversely, the City’s outside and expensive retained council have ultimately argued in favor of persnicketiness.
Quincy Quarry News’ two cents: the City is arguing for a more demanding signature approval protocol to merely see the go with a lower raise ballot question be on election day ballot than is required for someone to pull a ballot to cast binding votes.
Say what?
A Paramount Television image
And for a solid and more granular review of the particulars, consider checking out the South Shore broadsheet’s coverage published in advance of today’s hearing.
Further note that the judge previously ordered a review of the signatures per a protocol consistent with the plaintiffs’ view how certification should have been conducted.
In turn, this review resulted in finding that 1,397 more petition signatures would have been certified, 69% more than the 828 signatures the petition fell short per the City Clerk’s challenged certification process.
Exercising their right to vote no what an election clerk thinks.
An old photo
Needless to say, if the judge opts to rules in favor of the plaintiffs and so honor the will as well as voting rights of the people, not only is the mayor looking at perhaps to probably not seeing a fat raise, local taxpayers will be conversely looking at having to not only cover the cost of at least mid-five figures of city funds spent on outside legal counsel to defend his raise, but also something comparable to reimburse the plaintiffs’ legal expenses undertaken to assure that voters’ rights as well as well as the will of the people are protected.
In short, either way local taxpayers will be koched.
Also needless to say, Quincy Quarry News’ ever-growing legions of loyal voters can count on it to report on how things play out in court today as well as upon the event of the judge issuing her ruling.
They didn’t use Timmins as he always loses. Koch wants his raise so he instead hired the best lawyers he could. If KOch loses this case, both he and Timmins should have to pay the legal fees. A legit mayor wouldn’t be scared to let the people vote on it.
All this money could have been spent on city services. Plowing, snow removal, pothole repair or here is a novel idea: spend less so residents pay less in taxes.
More,
I am assuming that you would like to see Tommy Taxes and “O’fer” Timmins also stuck with paying the plaintiffs’ court costs when they likely prevail.
That and a fine for wasting the court’s time with nonsense and poundings of the table.
The mayor’s legal fees should come out of the mayor’s campaign funds.
John,
Allow me to suggest somewhere else — technically, an orifice.
Yes! Why should taxpayers be on the hook for the legal expenses? Snow removal would be a much better use of the money.
I’ve no objection to reasonable raises but this, this is virtual theft of taxpayer money.
Workers can’t simply demand more money, why should politicians? Tie their increases to the cost of living, like they are for most people.
D
No offense, but your use of “virtual” is arguably superfluous.
And as for a more fitting raise for the mayor, instead of the pending 89% raise he grifted for himself after buying off council approval via giving the former council line-up 50% raises, why not instead go with performance-based pay what with the city’s finances a koched-up mess?
Totally agree 💯!!!