Holy statues, Batman

The City Council meeting on Feb. 24th was a poorly performed farce. Our expectations were already low when our request for a public hearing on the religious statues commissioned by the Mayor was denied and we were subjected to a lengthy update on the entire Public Safety building project instead. While the statues are technically part of that construction, the first hour was spent recapping a $175 million capital project—floor plans, parking lots, onsite gym, etc. For those of us hoping for a meaningful dialogue—or for our councilors to actually advocate for concerned residents—it was a profound disappointment. When the statues finally came up, the discussion largely consisted of councilors parroting the mayor’s talking points in the form of questions.

Overall, there were no substantive questions about the statues. A couple councilors dropped soft hints similar to “maybe it would be nice, if it’s ok with the mayor, if we had a better process for choosing public art in the future.” When a councilor asked what residents should do if they are still mad about the statues, Chris Walker, the Mayor’s #2, snarked “Wait for the beautiful artwork.” He went on to say, “This decision has been made. He (Mayor Koch) understands some people don’t agree with it. That’s the price of doing business.” 🤔

Councilor McCarthy said he does not see the statues as having “any religious connotation.” Two weeks earlier he was quoted as saying the statues “will bless our first responders…It might help them. They might say a little prayer before they go out on duty.” Patriot Ledger 2/25/2025

Walker went on to encourage anyone with concerns to contact the mayor’s office, assuring them that the mayor welcomes the conversation because he "really believes in this." Oddly, no one asked why, if he was so committed, he chose not to have that conversation before making the purchase.

The gallery was filled with first responders who came to show support for the project, including the statues. This is a regular occurrence when an agenda item involves spending on public safety. Of course, first responders have every right to advocate for their needs; however, it’s uncomfortable to know that one of the chiefs requested their department attend.* The Mayor and the councilors who carry his water attempted to misframe the discussion: if you oppose the statues, you oppose the police and fire departments.

As we said in a subsequent video presentation:

“The council attempted to rewrite the plot, framing the discussion as a debate over support for our first responders—something A Just Quincy does not oppose.
The focus of our objection is clear: religious statues that violate both the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions, inserted into a public project without input from the people or their elected representatives, conceived and commissioned by one individual to reflect their own taste and religious sensibilities”.

Ian Cain stopped the proceedings at one point because of “disrespect” and “disruptions” from the crowd. He gaveled the meeting to a break while those in attendance “find their manners.” At the end of the meeting Mr. Cain gave an 8-minute monologue that featured his feelings on political opportunism and subversion. He expressed dismay that someone gave the statue purchase information to the Patriot Ledger. He felt their intent was to embarass the city council. He also felt that the statues are not meant to promote a religion and that all statues to some degree are religious in nature because they “deify people.” He then mistakenly identified St. Michael (an Archangel in the celestial realm) as a person. Councilor Cain went on for several more minutes contorting logic to establish precedent for these statues. His examples included: religious-adjacent artwork at the Boston Public Library and the MA State house and iconography at Quincy’s cemeteries. The third video in AJQ’s new video series starts to disect Councilor Cain’s innacurate speech.

Since the public hearing residents had requested never materialized, those concerned about the statues were invited by A Just Quincy to share their thoughts after the meeting. The discussion was hosted at the United First Parish Church (Church of the Presidents), just across the courtyard from City Hall. Salvatore Balsamo generously filmed both the city council meeting and AJQ’s public forum at the church hall, later producing an edited version that aired on QATV.

Mimi Balsamo speaks at the AJQ forum at the Church of the Presidents

The Patriot Ledger provided good coverage of the meeting.

Inspired by the terrible governance on display at the meeting, A Just Quincy started a video series: “Quincy, this is Your Government.” The first four episodes are out:

1. Quincy, this is Your Government, Vol. 1: Enjoy the Beautiful Artwork

2. Quincy, this is Your Government, Vol. 2: Community Theatre

3. Quincy, this is Your Government, Vol. 3: A Cain Derailment, Part 1

4. Quincy, this is Your Government, Vol. 4: A Cain Derailment, Part 2

Councilor Cain and Mayor Koch were subsequently interviewed by Joe Catalano on A.M. Quincy. You can view these interviews at the links provided, as well as:

AJQ Co-Founder, Joe Murphy sits down with Joe Catalano to discuss AJQ’s activity and the statue controversy.

• an earlier version of this post said that both chiefs requested their departments attend the meeting. I have been told that is not accurate and adjusted the wording. Thanks
  
  

AJQ Statement on statues

Watch the video (at end of message) or read our statement (below) regarding the statues commissioned by Mayor Koch ahead of tonight’s City Council meeting. Concerned residents are encouraged to attend.

After the meeting, we will host our own community forum at President's Church Hall, located just across the courtyard from Quincy City Hall. To show solidarity, we suggest wearing black. Plan to arrive early, as we anticipate a full house with many first responders in attendance.

A Just Quincy Statement:
Prepared for 2/24/2025 city council meeting (6:30 p.m.)

Following several news articles, hundreds of social media posts, an online petition which has now been signed by 1200 people, and many calls and emails to elected officials, the Quincy City Council decided to put “update of the public safety building” on the agenda for Feb 24, 2025. The primary request of the letters, calls and posts was to have an opportunity for public input into the decision to commission two religious statues for almost a million dollars. Although we appreciate the Council agreeing to put the “public safety building” on the agenda, that was not the request. The residents of Quincy want and deserve to have a say in this process. Yet again, our elected officials refuse to open this issue for discussion. A Just Quincy has organized an opportunity for concerned citizens to have their voices heard. We will continue to advocate for the issues people care about and ensure that our elected officials listen.

The proposed statues of Sts. Michael and Florian commissioned to adorn the exterior of the new Quincy Public Safety building are at odds with the needs and wants of the average Quincy taxpayer. Our objections to these statues are based on the foundational and inextricable American value of a separation of Church and State, fiscal responsibility and oversight, and the overall tone and message of the proposed artwork.

We understand the tradition of patron saints and that Sts. Michael and Florian are special to the police and fire departments, respectively. But that being said, the working models, especially that of St. Michael, are overtly religious. It is precisely the type of artwork that the courts have instructed officials to avoid in public spaces.

Chief Justice Berger wrote in the court’s 8-1 Lemon v Kurtzman decision:

“The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and it must not be sponsored, subsidized, or in any way directed by the state…
The potential for divisive political conflict along religious lines was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect.”

The Massachusetts ACLU has also advised that these statues will fail all of the prongs of what has become known as the Lemon Test.

We are also very concerned that a large line-item purchase was added to this project without notification, discussion, and assent from our elected representatives, the City Council. The fact that an $850,000 purchase was not brought before the council speaks to the administration’s feelings as to whether or not this purchase would be deemed appropriate and their apparent belief that major decisions can and will be made without any oversight by the Council or input from the public.. This administration created a fait accompli where this transaction would happen before anyone found out about it. A purchase like this can not be treated as a gift at a surprise party. The content and cost of this should have been debated at council with input from the residents the building is being constructed to serve. Additionally, this administration has promised this body reforms to the city's financial controls in light of the egregious abuses and theft of funding meant for our city's seniors that went unnoticed for years. At the same time that these improved controls were being installed, these statues, with a price tag nearing $1 million, were being smuggled past your oversight. Any spending of funds over $10,000 (with a few exceptions) should go through a request for proposal process to ensure equitable opportunity for potential bidders to be considered for a city contract. It appears this process did not happen.

Moreover, our first responders are compassionate people who help our residents during some of the worst moments of their lives. We do not see our police and fire fighters as soldiers and warriors, we see them as public servants who use force sparingly, selectively, and rarely. We do not think the statues emblemize the important and challenging work our first responders do. Chief Kennedy recently remarked that less than 10% of arrests in Quincy involve any use of force, and less than 1% involve any injuries. We are thankful that number is not higher but we hope for the sake of our officers and our residents that the use of force metric can fall even lower. As Councilor Minton wisely pointed out, referring to the working model of St. Michael, “The statue would be misleading when it comes to the QPD, where members strive to keep its citizens safe.” I encourage everyone to carefully read Councilor Minton’s conscientious statement in its entirety. The councilor and former officer very clearly articulates our concerns in this regard. We thank him and applaud his courage to speak truth to power.

Finally, we encourage our city council to consider this:

The only way to stop the administration from bypassing you and our political process is to say “no” when they do. Every time you give them a pass, you encourage and reward the avoidance of your oversight. Further, we call on our city council to offer public comment periods, as the school committee does, before every council meeting.

And on behalf of Quincy taxpayers, we want to remind our elected leaders that it is OK to come in under budget. Just because the council approved a $175 million request, does not mean we need to find new and creative ways to spend the money. I encourage you to ask your constituents what they would like done with nearly $1 million dollars, you will hear lists that include:

—Offsets to property tax collections
—Climate controls for our school buildings
—Road paving

In conclusion, we all want the new Safety Building to be attractive and comfortable for city employees to work out of. We want this building to be a source of pride that represents our first responders and the residents who rely on them. To that end, we encourage you not to allow an entanglement of one particular religious faith in a brand new government building.

Our city played an important part in the founding of this country, so let it always be said that Quincy understands and protects the first amendment.

Thank you

Our mission

A Just Quincy's mission is to make our city government more just, accountable, and transparent. We will do this by providing information and analysis to help Quincy residents engage in the democratic process and by supporting candidates and elected leaders who promote government by and for the people. We welcome any residents who support our mission to join us.

Video Version of AJQ Statement

Statues show cracks at City Council

UPDATE: AJQ has released an official statement in advance of the 2/24 city council meeting.

SECOND UPDATE: The ACLU has disseminated the powerful letter they sent Mayor Koch.

The Patriot Ledger’s Quincy-focused reporter, Peter Blandino, published a very informative report on discussions swirling around the design and purchase of two religious statues to be placed outside the new public safety building.  Thank you to the PATRIOT LEDGER for your coverage of this issue.

Action Items:

• Plan to attend the upcoming city council meeting this Monday evening (Feb 24) at 6:30 p.m.  There you can make contact with other concerned citizens and meet to discuss the issues and next steps.

• Contact the MA ACLU to thank them for their expert opinion published in the Patriot Ledger.  Let them know you would support any action they deem appropriate on this matter. legalresources@aclum.org

• Contact your city councilor and let them know that you want a public hearing in front of City Council.

If you haven’t heard, here are some quick bullet points. 

The situation:

• Mayor Koch commissioned two statues to be displayed in front of the new $175 million safety headquarters being built at Sea Street and Southern Artery. 

• The total cost of these statues is $850,000. 

• These statues depict: 

• St. Michael, the Archangel, standing over a defeated Satan/demon 

• A giant-sized Roman centurion identified as St. Florian dousing a building with water.

St. Michael the Archangel defeating Satan

St. Florian pouring water over a building

Concerns about religious imagery at a public building:
Many residents voiced outrage over the religious imagery, but Mayor Koch defended it on AM Quincy, stating, “I don’t view them specifically as religious. Yes, you can look at them from a religious angle, but I think you can also look at them from a different angle.” Earlier, he told the Patriot Ledger that the images were not strictly religious, while also arguing that they would be recognizable across three religious traditions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

I am a lifelong Catholic, not an expert in Judaism or Islam, but I don't think saints or archangels are commonly displayed in Jewish or Muslim contexts. The veneration and depiction of saints is a well-established tradition in Catholicism, however – something that Mayor Koch, a devout Catholic, undoubtedly knows.

In any case, the presence of religious statues outside a police station raises significant constitutional concerns under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting religion. Courts often use the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine whether such a display violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon Test would consider whether the display has a secular purpose, whether its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, and whether it fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. Mayor Koch seems to anticipate these arguments by repeatedly stressing the secular interpretations of the statues, telling the Ledger they represent bravery, courage and service: “It seemed natural to do those images.”

But what feels natural to a devout Catholic may feel coercive to others. Public buildings serve all citizens, regardless of religious beliefs. A religious display outside a police station – where people go for protection or to handle legal matters – could make non-Christian residents feel excluded or unwelcome. 

Indeed, Ward 5 Councilor Dan Minton, a retired Quincy police lieutenant, raised the intimidating posture of the St. Michael statue in a Facebook post. He wrote that the statues evoked images of “brutal force” and an “us versus them” attitude that does not align with the humanitarian parts of police officers’ daily interactions with the public and their “reputation of compassion.” He wrote: “Generally, people don’t want to enter a police station – it is usually something bad that has happened, ranging from an act of violence to a simple parking ticket. The statue may not be a welcoming presence to someone already ill at ease.” 

The Patriot Ledger just reported that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU has weighed in on this debate. From the Patriot Ledger article:

Freedom of Expression Attorney Rachel Davidson said Article 2 in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not permit governments to erect displays "clearly and primarily religious in nature."

Davidson said Massachusetts courts would look to three factors, collectively known as the "Lemon Test," to determine the statues' constitutionality (The test takes its name from the 1971 Supreme Court Lemon vs. Kurtzman decision):

• Do the statues serve a primarily secular purpose?

• Do the statues advance or inhibit religion?

• Do the statues show excessive entanglement between government and religion?

Davidson said she's "very confident" that the statues, which she called "larger-than-life images of Catholic saints," fail each prong of the Lemon Test.

The figures of the saints could raise doubts as to whether Quincy government serves all residents equally, regardless of their faith or lack of faith, Davidson cautioned.

"We have serious concerns," she said. "We find that really troubling."

Concerns of cost: 

• The safety building was approved in 2021 with a budget of $120 million, a price tag that raised concerns for some councilors and residents.

• In October 2022, an additional $23 million to cover cost increases fueled by steep inflation was brought to the council for approval. Representatives from the project team said they were trying to get the number down, “but this is where we are.”

• In February 2024, the project was brought before the council for final approval.  

• All told, the project included $32 million in land purchases, $120 million in initial construction/infrastructure costs, and $23 million in overages caused in part by inflation.  $32M +$120M +23M = $175 million.

Neither the statues’ price tag, $850,000, nor subject matter (patron saints of police and firefighters) were brought before the city council for discussion. It is noteworthy that Councilor McCarthy claims he was made aware of the statues “a long time ago,” bringing up questions of open-meeting law compliance.

Mayor Koch said that these projects evolve and there was no need to go before council for a small line item when the overall cost stays the same. He elaborated on AM Quincy, “anytime we go to the city council for major building projects, the building always is a little different than when it first came in. You're dealing with plans, and plans evolve, and that could be said of any school building or any major project that goes on. The reality is the bottom line has not changed in the budget. I think the cost is half a percent of the entire project.”

The mayor’s argument seemed to resonate with some city councilors.
James Devine (Ward 4) said: "We budgeted for the project. Once it's budgeted, there is always going to be changes. As long as they stay within their budget, I don't see what the difference is."

Scott Campbell (At Large) suggested the ornate and costly statues would match the grandeur and expensiveness of the building. "You wouldn't wear a new suit with old shoes," Campbell told the Ledger. "Is that where I land on this? I don't know."

Some councilors seemed to support the depictions.
David McCarthy (Ward 1) told the Ledger the statues contain "a great message” and “will bless our first responders…. It might help them. They might say a little prayer before they go out on duty."

William Harris (Ward 6) said: "If they give (emergency responders) a sense of pride, strength and comfort, then I'm all for the statues.”

Councilor Minton (Ward 5) said he was not in favor of more statues in the city or at the new station, but if one was necessary, he suggested “a Police Officer (of normal size and less expense) welcoming the public,” with a tone similar to Norman Rockwell’s “The Runaway.” You can read Councilor Minton’s full statement here.

Norman Rockwell, The Runaway

When asked about Councilor Minton’s opinion, Mayor Koch told Joe Catalano on AM Quincy that Minton “doesn't speak for the retired police nor the active police department members." The mayor later quipped sarcastically that no one will miss the old police station aside from possibly Councilor Minton.  

Councilor Cain (Ward 3) seemed to be of two minds, per his own statement: “...statues of St. Michael and St. Florian were selected due to their long-standing association with police officers and firefighters...these figures have been used for centuries as symbols of protection, courage and service--values that our first responders embody every day. “

He also acknowledged that some may not agree that the statues meet the standard of secular or historical purposes (Lemon Test). He then mentions that the cost and process should be discussed as well.  He said he will be engaging his fellow councilors to see if adjustments should be made.

Cracks form between the city councilors

The Ledger asked city councilors if they had heard from Ward 3 Councilor (and current City Council President) Cain about further discussions. The resulting story paints a picture of extreme dysfunction at the council.

• William Harris (Ward 6) said Cain stopped communicating with him after Harris declined to accept the 50% raise the council gave themselves. Harris seemed annoyed that Councilor Cain never notified him that the Feb. 3 council meeting was being canceled due to a lack of business to discuss, leading him to needlessly fly home from Florida, where he was vacationing at Disney World with family. "If I had known (of the cancellation), I would have changed my flight," he said. "I was having one heck of a good time with my grandson."

• Councilor-at-large Nina Liang provided a brief statement saying she "will work with (Cain) with any conversation we need to have on this."

• Councilor-at-large Noel DiBona said, "No comment" and "I don't know," and deferred to Cain as council president to set the agenda.

Citizens seek to be heard
As of the writing of this article, a Change.org petition opposing the statues had over 1,100 signatures.  The petition allows for the public to leave a comment.  Here is a sampling: 

• The separation of church and state is VITAL to democracy, and progress in general. Mayor Koch has to know this. The question is, does he care? It’s beyond insulting to use our tax dollars for religious statues.

• I don't agree with religious statues on public buildings in general. But I am appalled at the proposed cost – especially when every road in Quincy is in desperate need of repair. The idea that we can spend almost a million dollars on these and aren't spending that money to pave the roads we use every day is unacceptable.

• Was this voted in? If it’s being bought by taxpayers we should have been asked. We need some oversight. Our taxes keep going up. We don’t need luxuries and especially religious. We have a very diverse city and they are not all Catholic.

• The Quincy city government needs to be more transparent about how they are spending taxpayer money. If they are willing to spend $850k on two statues, how else have they used our money unwisely?

• This administration need to stop spending our money on needless things. In addition, we the people of Quincy, should have a say in how our money is being used.. Transparency!

Upcoming City Council Meeting
This coming Monday (Feb 24) the city council has “Public Safety Headquarters Update” as its first agenda item. No public hearing on any matter is currently scheduled. However, A Just Quincy is encouraging all concerned to attend the 6:30 city council meeting. We would like to make our presence felt and be available to any press in attendance. 

We have several concerns regarding this issue:

• The religious themes of the statues commissioned for the public safety headquarters.

• The substantial cost of these statues ($850,000).

• The lack of oversight and council approval in adding such a large expense to the project.

• The Mayor and some councilors’ view that as long as spending remains under a cap, it is justified.

• The breakdown in communication among council members.

• The Mayor’s dismissive and disrespectful attitude toward Councilor Minton, a former lieutenant in the Quincy Police Department.

Action Items:

• Plan to attend the upcoming city council meeting this Monday evening (Feb 24) at 6:30 p.m.  There you can make contact with other concerned citizens and meet to discuss the issues and next steps.

• Contact the MA ACLU to thank them for their expert opinion published in the Patriot Ledger.  Let them know you would support any action they deem appropriate on this matter. legalresources@aclum.org

• Contact your city councilor and let them know that you want a public hearing in front of City Council.

The Real State of the City

Blog post by AJQ executive committee member Spencer Henderson

Given the immaterial State of the City address and the recent city council meeting that was canceled due to ‘no business’, you’d be forgiven for thinking there were no pressing issues facing our city. 

Sure, the roads are in horrible shape, but I’m sure we'll be getting freshly paved roads any day now. Sure, the mayor and city council were forced to delay taking their 79% and 50% raises in response to the state's ethics investigation, but they decided to leave the raises on the books and in the budget, so there must be no problems there. Also, that guy who stole all that city money from Quincy Elder Services? He was caught. Yes, he is a close friend of the mayor, who also happened to be a leader in the same local men’s-only prayer group, but you never really know who you can trust nowadays.

Sure that prayer group (the Men of Divine Mercy) has special guests such as Father Tom Hoar, who posts and reposts anti-climate change messages repeatedly on X/Twitter and who seems to believe quite literally that we are in a spiritual war between God and the devil. But surely the prayer group’s leaders – the mayor, his media director, the commissioner of public works (the guy in charge of the roads), the commissioner of natural resources, the chief financial officer, a city lawyer, and the former director of plant facilities – leave their personal religious beliefs at the door when acting in their professional capacities as government employees, right?

That’s what the mayor implied when asked about two 10-foot-tall bronze statues that will flank the entrance to the new public safety building at a cost of $850,000. According to The Patriot Ledger, “Neither statue carries strictly religious messages, Koch said, stressing instead their representation of bravery, courage and service, values which he said Quincy's first responders exemplify.”

The statues depict Saint Florian (patron saint of chimney sweeps, soapmakers and firefighters) and Saint Michael the Archangel (representing the angel of death and the model of spiritual warfare in the Catholic tradition). The latter is standing on the head and neck of the devil. “‘That's what the police are about in our community,’ Koch said, referring to St. Michael's symbolic representation of ‘good versus evil,’” reported the Ledger.

Most of the city council was totally unaware of these sculptural features until the Ledger’s story came out (and one, a retired Quincy police lieutenant, then objected to St. Michael’s “us vs them” symbolism), but the mayor had a ready explanation. The designs evolved after the building’s plans were presented to the council. “It seemed natural to do those images,” he said.

Speaking of things that have evolved over time, check out this chart of the city’s net financial position that I made using the city’s audited financial statements. “Net position” means just what you’d think – it’s the value of the city’s assets minus the value of its debts. 

Data from the City of Quincy’s audited financial statements (Image: Spencer Henderson/AJQ)

When Koch won his first mayoral election in 2007, we were running a net positive $152 million balance sheet – we were “up” by $152 million. That climbed to a $175 million surplus in 2013 before dropping down to a deficit of $762 million in 2023 – a loss of almost $1 billion in a decade. 

That is quite a feat, and the mayor’s unilateral decision to add ~$1 million of religious statuary to a $175 million public safety building (which, with interest payments, will ultimately cost taxpayers $320 million) is just the latest example of the kind of leadership that got us here. Amazing work!

This blog has been updated to include more context on the statues and on the parallels between the mayor’s comments about them and Father Hoar’s beliefs.

All the wrong we cannot see

This is a blog post by Joe Murphy. The opinions expressed are his own.

Corruption – what it means, how it shows up here in Quincy, and how to fight it – has been on my mind lately, thanks to recent headlines about a local official indicted for embezzlement.

That official, Tom Clasby, was dismissed last year as Quincy’s Director of Elder Services, a position he’d held since 1997, over unspecified “financial irregularities.” This month, Mr. Clasby, a longtime friend of the mayor’s, was indicted for allegedly embezzling $120,000 in city funds to buy luxuries for himself and his friends. The case garnered national attention due to the scale of the alleged theft and the lavishness of some of the purported purchases, including 150 pounds of bourbon steak tips, a lacquered and framed self-portrait, and 170 hours of studio time to record himself singing. 

Mr. Clasby’s actions clearly seem to have run afoul of the law, but not all corruption, defined as “the misuse of office for private gain,” is illegal. It includes behaviors widely regarded as unethical, such as nepotism, cronyism, and pay-to-play practices.

While researching corruption, I came across a helpful concept known as the fraud triangle. According to this model, three key factors – motivation, rationalization, and opportunity – contribute to fraud. Understanding these factors can help combat fraud and corruption in Quincy and beyond.

Image - https://windhambrannon.com/

Motivation and Rationalization

The first two factors in the fraud triangle, motivation and rationalization, are internal to the schemer. Motivation can stem from simple greed or a complex mix of factors such as resentment, envy, and a warped sense of justice. Understanding why someone commits fraud and how they justify their behavior to themselves can help prevent future fraud.

Local workplace culture may play a role. I have heard of employees caught stealing who claimed they were improperly taught certain practices. A trainer might suggest that an unopened printer sitting in the supply closet is “just collecting dust” and that it would be more productive to take it home and print from there. Similarly, an unauthorized lunch with coworkers might be placed on the company credit card with the justification that it’s “good for morale.” These violations can feel less wrong when they are implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by a mentor. Once this type of behavior becomes ingrained in workplace culture, it can spread like a contagion.

The rationalization that these actions are morally ambiguous or fall into a gray area can evolve into statements like “I’m only borrowing this” or “I’ll pay it back after the holidays.” Over time, such thinking can escalate to sentiments like “I deserve this” or “the executives are doing the same thing.” These rationalizations, often referred to by psychologists and human resource professionals as moral disengagement, describe a mental process that “regulates the exercise of moral agency, allowing individuals to behave unethically despite the presence of internal moral standards.” This theory helps explain how someone who would not typically engage in unethical behavior begins to rationalize and commit such acts.

While we don’t know exactly why Mr. Clasby allegedly embezzled public funds or how he justified it to himself, it seems clear that his actions were not impulsive mistakes, like using the wrong credit card at a gas pump or accidentally mixing up Amazon accounts. Reports suggest his actions involved deliberate planning and deception. For example, Mr. Clasby allegedly directed invoices to be deceptively mislabeled, funneled $38,000 in cash through a friend’s New York consulting company (arranging handoffs at a turnpike rest stop and a ferry terminal), and pocketed up to $57,000 in cash payments made by seniors for classes and food at the Kennedy Center. The level of forethought required for these actions is deeply troubling.

Research shows that such behaviors are often progressive, starting with minor infractions or less direct offenses. The current indictment covers actions dating back to 2019, but Mr. Clasby faced accusations of misconduct a decade earlier. In 2009, he stepped down from the board of a nonprofit amid allegations of violating conflict-of-interest policies. According to The Patriot Ledger, Clasby facilitated his parents’ move into a recently vacated unit owned by the nonprofit, despite the unit being reserved for low-income seniors eligible for federal Section 8 housing. At the time, another couple was first on the waiting list.

Opportunity

The final factor in the “fraud triangle,” opportunity, is particularly interesting from a policy perspective. This is because it encompasses the conditions that allow fraud to occur and, importantly, can be managed by the organization rather than the potential fraudster. Stringent internal controls, robust auditing procedures, and a well-defined segregation of duties can help deter employees who might otherwise be tempted to commit fraud.

I’ve seen these systems work firsthand. As a college administrator, part of my job involves approving and reconciling expenses for other employees. On more than one occasion, I’ve had the unfortunate responsibility of reporting irregularities or suspicions about someone’s documentation or expense reports to the Human Resources and Finance departments. These reports sometimes resulted in punitive actions. These experiences underscored the critical importance of internal rules that prevent any single individual from approving or auditing their own expenses or having full, end-to-end control over financial processes.

While I don’t know the specifics of Quincy’s internal controls, the fact that Mr. Clasby is accused of stealing his department’s cash receipts for years without triggering any internal alarms suggests serious deficiencies – either in the systems themselves or in how they were implemented. In the end, it was an unnamed whistleblower, not the controls, who brought his alleged actions to light.

Connections

At this point, no one is accusing any other employees or city leadership of participating in or turning a blind eye to the crimes. From what has been reported, this appears to be a case of the accused exploiting systemic weaknesses and the trust he had gained over a long career. 

But what role did Mr. Clasby’s personal connections with city leaders, including his close friendship with the mayor, play in gaining that trust, and thus in creating an opportunity for fraud?

One of Mr. Clasby’s purchases speaks to these personal connections. Mr. Clasby reportedly used $810 of public funds to buy 27 fleece jackets for a Catholic men's prayer group called “Men of Divine Mercy”. This group meets on Thursdays at Sacred Heart Church, and its leadership includes a number of prominent figures in Quincy’s local government: Mayor Koch, Public Works Commissioner Al Grazioso, Media Director Mark Carey, Natural Resources Commissioner Dave Murphy, Chief Financial Officer Eric Mason, and Special Counsel John Bacon.

Members of the Men of Divine Mercy prayer group. One of the 27 fleece vests purchased with taxpayer money is being worn by the gentleman on the far right. This picture was shared by someone on the AJQ mailing list who got it from Facebook.

And it seems that personal connection made the mayor think twice – however fleetingly – about holding Mr. Clasby accountable. On the January 14th, 2025, episode of AM Quincy, Mayor Koch told host Joe Catalano:

The day it came down with the information that a whistleblower brought forth, [I] immediately had the police chief take over the investigation. Immediately had the solicitor write a letter on my behalf putting [Clasby] on leave. Taking away his keys, his access to the building, etc. So we did everything we should do, and the feds confirmed that. So I felt good about that. In a sense, you know, the temptation is, “Oh boy, you know Tom [Clasby]'s been around a long time. What can we do to help him?” Well, you know, he made choices and now he's going to deal with the consequences of those choices.  

I find that disturbing for a couple of reasons.

1. The administrative bar is too low. It should not be surprising or an accomplishment to handle a situation like this correctly. The Quincy taxpayer has a right to professionalism in their city government. Letting someone go for cause is a routine administrative procedure. 

2. When the mayor said, “the temptation is, ‘Oh boy, you know Tom's been around a long time. What can we do to help him?’” that sounded to me like he flirted with (and thankfully dismissed) the idea of altering or withholding certain facts, which would have been a coverup. That should not be a temptation. 

Tom Clasby held a position of authority for nearly 30 years and had close personal relationships with the mayor and other senior leadership. Did these dynamics create an environment where accountability was diminished, allowing misconduct to go unchecked? Did the whistleblower come forward as soon as they had knowledge of wrongdoing? Did they hesitate? Did they feel comfortable speaking truth to power?

Culture

Let’s bring in the third Tom in our story to speak to the culture around truth-telling in city government – which forms part of the “opportunity” side of the fraud triangle.

Thomas Corliss, a former Quincy police detective, was convicted and served jail time for charging overtime hours when he was not working. In other words, the former detective “collected double pay for working multiple details and/or police shifts that overlapped on multiple occasions in 2015.” At the time, Corliss was reportedly the highest-paid employee in Quincy, earning $265,000 per year. Like the Clasby scandal, the scheme unraveled thanks to someone with the courage to speak up.

Speaking truth to power seems to be very difficult in Quincy. Those who do are subject to accusations of “being negative”, “haters”, “naysayers” or “squawkers.” They are “not part of the team.” This has an impact when people weigh whether or not to report issues. Leo Coppens, a Quincy detective who became aware of Corliss’s payroll irregularities, acknowledged that among his first thoughts were worries about how a scandal would affect Police Chief Paul Keenan, a friend, and the mayor, whom the detective supported politically, according to the Ledger. 

You will recall that while we were collecting signatures to try to repeal the mayor’s and council’s raises, residents expressed fear of the administration to A Just Quincy volunteers. Community members who work for the city, or who have loved ones who do, were nervous about signing petitions for fear of retribution. With that in mind, consider this interaction between a US Attorney and a police officer who had testimony to give regarding the Corliss matter.

When Prosecutor Ryan DeSantis of the US Attorney’s office was investigating the matter, he asked a police officer why he did not report Corliss when he first noticed the problem: 

“I wasn’t comfortable telling anyone else,” the officer said.

“Why?” DeSantis asked.

The officer said he was afraid of retribution.

DeSantis asked him if there had been incidents involving Corliss and other officers that would instill that worry in him.

“Yes,” the officer said, without getting into specifics. “There’s plenty of reasons why.”

Soft Corruption

Up to this point, most of our discussion has focused on illegal activities such as overtime fraud, embezzlement, and theft – offenses that can lead to indictment, conviction, and imprisonment. However, soft corruption, defined as “political and governmental activities that are legal but unethical,” is far more pervasive and has become the accepted way of doing business in many parts of the country.

Some of the most glaring examples of soft corruption involve campaign contributions from real estate developers to incumbent politicians. Developers and the businesses that support them, including attorneys, architects, and construction trades, frequently donate the maximum amount allowed by law to these officials (in Massachusetts, that works out to $1000/year/donor to any single candidate). Legal loopholes exist to bypass the individual donation limit, though. For instance, the owner of a construction company might donate the $1,000 maximum to a candidate, and their spouse and child might each contribute another $1,000, with the company’s second-in-command and their family members following suit. Such donations do not violate the letter of campaign finance law, but they would seem to violate its spirit.

This screengrab from the 2023 Office of Campaign and Political Finance report for Mayor Koch shows 12 separate $1000 donations from individuals connected to the same Quincy company.

I bring this issue up because elected leaders set the tone for city government. If soft corruption is accepted as standard practice, it becomes less surprising when we encounter more egregious forms of corruption. However campaign funding warrants a blog post of its own, so I’ll stop here. 

As a reminder, A Just Quincy is collaborating with residents preparing to run for office later this year. I deeply hope we can identify and elect leaders who will prioritize the needs of the people they represent over those of special interest groups or wealthy influencers. Together, we can establish a foundation of moral engagement at city hall that prevents any aspect of the fraud triangle from taking hold.

If you want to tell us about corruption you have observed or experienced in Quincy, you can tell us anonymously. Our Google form below allows you to tell us your story without giving any identifying information. Alternatively, you can message us via Signal @ajustquincy.18.

Huge turnout at candidate info session brings hope for A Just Quincy

A Just Quincy (AJQ), a citizen-led group formed in Quincy in mid-2024 in response to the mayor and city council’s approval of exorbitant pay raises for themselves, hosted a lunchtime meet-and-greet on Saturday, January 11th. 

The event was designed to provide more information on running for political office. “The pay raises were a symptom of a government that needs more challenges to its power – and in fact most races for ward councilor are uncontested,” said group leader Joe Murphy. “We hope to inspire more people to run for elected office, which should create greater checks and balances in local government.”

The organizers faced some logistical challenges when they had to switch venues at the last minute while contending with Quincy’s first significant snowfall of the new year. Initially, the group had reserved a medium-sized conference room at the public library’s main branch. However, as the RSVP list looked likely to grow beyond the room’s capacity, AJQ approached library staff earlier in the week about upgrading to the larger conference room. After initially being told that would likely be possible, since the larger room was not booked, library administration later returned its verdict on the change: no. That decision held the morning of the event, after a flood of last-minute RSVPs pushed attendance numbers well past the booked room’s capacity.

Fortunately, AJQ quickly secured an alternate venue at the United First Parish Church (the President’s Church), located across the street. According to the church’s website, it is inspired to uphold democratic values and promote “spiritual growth, creative expression, and freedom of thought.”

Despite the last-minute change and the snowy weather, attendance and enthusiasm were undiminished.

The event opened with a 15-minute presentation by AJQ co-founders Joe Murphy and Maggie McKee, who outlined six main points:

1. Why Quincy needs new candidates

2. The responsibilities of elected leaders

3. What to expect while running

4. Fundraising and campaign spending

5. How AJQ can support candidates

6. Qualities AJQ seeks in candidates they endorse

Following the presentation, former school committee member, at-large city councilor, and mayoral candidate Anne Mahoney shared her insights and experiences about running for and serving in elected office. She emphasized that while winning is always the goal, government is strengthened when more people run, regardless of the outcome. She added that elected officials fulfill their duty to represent constituents when they ask tough questions of city leaders, even when it makes them “shake in their boots.”

The event attracted 60 attendees with varying levels of political experience, from campaign veterans to newcomers. The goal was to create opportunities for those new to the process to ask questions and learn from those with firsthand experience.

AJQ was delighted with the turnout and results. “Our current councilors and school committee members should expect to face challengers this year, and we hope that will make them more accountable to their constituents immediately,” said Murphy. “Running for office is truly a form of community service.”

For more information about the event and the resources shared there, visit ajustquincy.com. To sign up for AJQ’s mailing list, visit bit.ly/ajqlist. And to volunteer to help elect new candidates, fill out the form at bit.ly/ajqcanhelp.

The candidates who lunch 🍕🥗🍪

The first AJQ update of 2025, featuring a one-minute reminder of our upcoming lunch at the library this Saturday for anyone interested in running for office

Jan 06, 2025

Hi AJQ people,

Happy New Year!

We are now in 2025. That means the next local election is THIS YEAR. The clock has started for anyone who wants to be listed as a candidate for city council or school committee on November’s ballot. We have time, but we do not have time to waste.

So if you’re thinking of running, please come to our info session for potential candidates this Saturday (Jan. 11, 11 am - 1 pm, top floor classroom in the main library, 40 Washington Street, Quincy Center). It won’t be fancy, but it will be fun and informative. Importantly, there will be pizza, some salad/veggie thing, and cookies.

Oh, and former city councilor and school committee member Anne Mahoney will be there to share her wisdom with us!

Let us know if you are attending on Saturday by emailing us at info@ajustquincy.com or responding through our event page on Facebook (we need to know how much food to get and if we need to reserve a bigger room!). So far, it looks like the weather should hold, but if that changes, please check our blog for any updates.

See you there,

Joe

PS Some resources from Maggie if you’re thinking about running:

Someone on Reddit suggested we look into a group called “The Incorruptibles” (which has since morphed into “Incorruptible Mass”), and this is an interesting interview with its founder, Anna Callahan, who is now a city councilor in Medford.

The Incorruptibles uses Richmond, California, as an example of a city where the people worked to elect a slate of candidates to office. Over a number of years, they got a supermajority on the council and were able to accomplish a lot of their goals. More about how they did it in the video above.

And here is a discussion about how to best answer the question, “Why are you running for office?”

Extra credit, a few other resources on running for office:

How to Run for Office, NPR

She Should Run

Run for Something

A call to run…

A blog post by Joe Murphy

It’s been a while since my last blog post. Part of the reason for the gap is that I transitioned from a long-held position at MIT to a new role in a completely different part of campus, which has demanded much of my attention. Additionally, a significant focus—rightly so—has been on the Granite Links lease. I wanted to ensure that we could all stay concentrated on this critical issue.

But this past City Council meeting, there was a disappointing vote—what else is new? Once again, the council allowed themselves to become accomplices in yet another affront to the best interests and will of Quincy’s residents. Ironically, the mayor and the Quarry Hills Association managed to push the lease extension out of the ordinance committee and through the council with virtually no resistance. The council voted 8-0 in favor of the Quarry Hills Association’s lease extension, despite strong, passionate, and organized opposition from Quincy residents.

As with other controversial issues that have faced legitimate public opposition (the raise issue comes to mind), it’s damning that none of the sitting councilors were willing to stand against the mayor or the administration’s proposals. The truth is this: the City Council is more afraid of upsetting the mayor than of upsetting the people they were elected to represent. That needs to change, and the most effective way to make it happen is to prepare challengers. Strong and viable challengers in the next election pose a far greater threat to the councilors’ continued tenure than a grouchy mayor ever could.

Before we get too close to Christmas—with trips being planned and holiday breaks on the horizon—I’d like to ask anyone interested in helping AJQ form a slate for the next election to save the morning and early afternoon of Saturday, January 11th. We’ll be hosting a gathering for those considering running for office next year. This will be an opportunity to meet, introduce ourselves, and discuss how we can collaborate to replace as many city councilors as possible.

AJQ’s latest video explains why we urgently need more people to step up and run for office.

To run for office, you’ll need a team. AJQ includes many knowledgeable and talented people; our membership includes:

Former Candidates Campaign Volunteers Lawyers

Financial Consultants Graphic Designers Web Designers

Writers People who raise funds Hardworking passionate residents

Here is a partial list of thoughts that scare people who are considering a run:

“I wouldn’t know where to start.” (We do.)

“Would I find anyone to help me?” (Found us!)

“Would I need a website?” (Probably. But we can show you that too. This blog is on a website.)

“How much money do I need to run? How does that work?” (It depends. Let’s talk it over.)

We believe it's time to reinvigorate democracy in Quincy. We need to elect leaders who are committed to transparency, accountability, and who genuinely listen to the people. We want city councilors who are unafraid to stand up to the mayor when necessary. Additionally, we believe that the quickest way to transform our city council is by offering competition to the current councilors and reducing or eliminating unopposed races in Quincy.

Graphic from AJQ video “We need candidates”

Our gathering on January 11th will include food and beverages and will provide an informal opportunity to answer any questions you may have. There is no commitment required on your part to run, nor is there any guarantee that AJQ will support your candidacy. However, it is through meetings like this that those decisions can be made.

We hope to see many of you on the morning of the 11th. Details on the time and location will be provided soon.

Letter: Granite Links lease is much more than an extension

AJQ's blog is a place for members to express opinions and ideas and should not be considered official statements from the group. This post was written by Jocelyn Sedney, a retired attorney and Quincy resident.

Don’t be fooled! Quarry Hills Associates wants much more than a 50-year extension tacked to its existing lease to run the Granite Links Golf Club on city land.

As we all know, the devil is in the details. Some city councilors praised the plan before they even had a copy of the new lease. That was provided by the City the day after the glossy presentation by Quarry Hills that failed to include a single word about money to be paid to the City.

The new lease releases Quarry Hills from its obligation in the current lease, which runs for another 20 years, to provide the city with a recreational complex. It also adds language that loads the Quarry Hills Advisory Committee required by the current lease – and not fulfilled – with Quarry Hills representatives so that they can advise themselves. 

But the most appalling change is that Mayor Koch carves out 12 acres of our open space and offers Quarry Hills the option to purchase it. And make no doubt, they will exercise the option. They unveiled schematics of the entire buildout – hotel, condominiums, huge parking areas, enhanced amenities, etc. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DO THIS?

The formula for payment to the City is not only worse than that in the current lease but also worse than in the company’s earlier request for a 99-year lease extension – an unpopular plan that it revoked months after the mayor proposed it. 

In the latest lease proposal, Quarry Hills will pay the city 10% gross revenues minus all expenses customarily related to operating, maintaining and financing the clubhouse, function rooms, and any other services such as the wedding tent. That is even more generous to Quarry Hills than the current lease, which allows some of these deductions but not maintenance or financing costs. These deductions are why Quincy gets so little of the club’s gross profits. Why would the mayor propose a new lease that stacks the deck even more in the club’s favor?

We need a new lease negotiated by Quincy and in the best interest of Quincy. This is not it.

—Jocelyn Sedney, Quincy

Have an example of intimidation by city officials?

The following letter ran in The Quincy Sun on November 7, 2024. Please see the last paragraph to find out how to report examples of intimidation by city officials.

Mayor, Sun Should Apologize for IDing Raise Critic

The Oct. 31 Sun included an interview with the mayor in which he identified the name and street of a constituent who had participated in a summer petition effort to repeal the mayor’s and council’s 79 and 50% pay raises.

The mayor pointed out that the city had rebuilt the resident’s street and had temporarily housed some folks in the neighborhood after a catastrophic flood in 2018. “We went in as a city and did everything for those people,” the mayor said.

The fact that the resident (and presumably his neighbors) accepted this help without the funding being put to a popular vote – as many residents wanted the pay raises to be – struck the mayor as unfair. “So it’s okay when it works in his favor,” he complained.

Before naming the resident and his street, the mayor made it clear he wanted them published: “I don’t mind going on the record on this.” But the Sun should have minded. “Private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures,” reads the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics. “Weigh the consequences of publishing personal information.”

The mayor is a public figure; the resident he named is not. Publishing the name and home street of a private citizen who criticized the mayor is not in the public’s best interest – and worse, it could endanger the citizen who dared to speak truth to power. The mayor and the Sun owe this citizen an apology for putting him and his family at risk.

By naming and shaming a constituent who spoke out against his official actions – actions that the same Sun article revealed had triggered an inquiry by the State Ethics Commission, the mayor proved that he is willing to go after his critics. 

That could discourage residents from expressing their true views to those in power. A Just Quincy saw that phenomenon in action this summer during our salary repeal petition drive, which ultimately fell short of the required signatures for a binding repeal. We decided to hold onto the signed forms instead of turning them over to the city because so many residents feared that signing could lead to retaliation. Now the mayor has proven them right.

We’d like to gauge the extent of such abuses of power, so please reach out to info@ajustquincy.com, @ajustquincy.18 on Signal, or 6176691832 on WhatsApp with any examples.

Maggie McKee

Executive committee member

A Just Quincy

Intro to ethics

Here’s a quick summary: It has been revealed that the reason, at least in part, that the mayor and the councilors decided to defer their raises was an ethics inquiry being conducted by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission. According to reporting by the Patriot Ledger, the inquiry had to do with the law on conflicts of interest.

On October 30, The Quincy Sun published an interview with Mayor Koch in which he discusses the ethics investigation, the deferments, and the raises themselves. He then goes on to attack a single resident with whom he seems especially irritated.

I broke this down in a video this week. You can watch the entire 20-minute video here. But I’m going to break it up into four parts in this blog post.

Part 1

The beginning of the article provides an in-depth look at the ethics investigation from Mayor Koch’s perspective. He discusses how he would have had to retain legal counsel to effectively fight the state’s investigation and adds that relentless pressure from people fighting the raises was creating a distraction in his day-to-day duties.

Part 1: ethics investigation and its role in the deferment decision.

Part 2

This section of the article delves into the financial implications of the deferments currently under discussion. The funds continue to remain in the overall budget, allowing for allocation to other departments as necessary, or they can be utilized for purposes such as free cash or rainy-day funds. The mayor has expressed a desire to maintain these ordinances in place as a tangible reminder of the agreements that were established regarding new salaries and the corresponding payments that should be enacted. While he has stated that he will not be accessing this money immediately, he emphasized its importance as a “visible reminder” of those commitments. This situation has sparked much speculation among observers, suggesting that there may be more to this than meets the eye. Some believe that leaving the raises included in the legislation could potentially provide a strategic advantage in future pension calculations.

Part 2 on our breakdown of the ethics investigation's role in the raise deferment: the mayor's rationale starts to fall apart. #mapoli #quincyma #salarygate #ajq #ajustquincy

Part 3

In this section, we delve into Mayor Koch’s ongoing complaints: citizens frequently underestimate just how challenging and demanding his job truly is. Moreover, many residents don’t seem to care that other prominent positions, such as school superintendent, police and fire chiefs, and town managers, often receive significantly higher salaries than mayors. He draws a comparison between Quincy’s situation and that of Cambridge, where the mayor and city manager are distinct roles, and notably, the city manager enjoys a substantial salary. We then flash back to the city council deliberations that took place in June, where the councilors repeatedly remind everyone that we are discussing the “position” itself and not any individual person who occupies that role.

In this section, we delve into Mayor Koch’s ongoing complaints.

Part 4

This part is, to me, the most shocking. Mayor Koch publicly criticizes a resident by name and street, saying they received special treatment from the city after a natural disaster. Now, that same person dares to protest the proposed raises. This behavior is beneath the mayor's office, and I strongly believe Mayor Koch should apologize to this individual.

Part 4, where the mayor puts an individual resident on blast.

QATV: Koch and Cain on the raise deferments

This week, Mayor Tom Koch and Council President Ian Cain each addressed the newly announced raise deferments on QATV’s podcast, AM Quincy with Joe Catalano. Their transcribed comments are below.

Mayor Tom Koch discusses raise deferments (Oct. 15, 2024)

Mayor Koch: The issue just continued to come about. I just felt it was time we put it aside so we can continue to focus on the important issues that the city is facing. It’s becoming a real distraction. So the city council president, Ian Cain, I know he discussed it with his body… and myself, we talked the end of last week. We talked and both agreed we would put it off til next term. That should hopefully put an end to it for a bit. The council term, you know, is a two-year term. The mayor’s term is a four-year term. I think at this point that was the best we could do with it.

QATV’s Joe Catalano: Would they be retroactive once they take effect?

Mayor: No, it’s forward.

Joe C: What happens to the funds that were already approved for these increases? 

Mayor: They’d just fall in at the end of the year for the surplus. That’s not a problem. You look at the budget like a big pie with pieces broken up for various departments. So sometimes certain departments may have trouble staying within that number, and others have a surplus. At the end of the year, you take the surpluses and deal with the deficits. Whatever is left is a positive thing that goes into our free cash. That’s not a problem at all.

Joe C: Would there have to be another public hearing process again once these are included in the budgets?

Mayor: No because the process is done. We made a decision just to put it off til after the next election. I think it had plenty of public comments. So It’ll just take effect the next term for the city councilors, which I believe for the councilors would be Jan 26, and for the mayor’s position, Jan 28.

Joe C: Does that mean you’re running for reelection?

Mayor: It does not mean anything, Joe. I’ve always said one at a time. It’s too early to talk about that. I’m only in year one of a four-year term. I’m not even thinking about that right now.

---

Council President Ian Cain discusses raise deferments (Oct. 16, 2024)

Cain: The statement was pretty clear that we put out. There isn't much more to discuss about it. I think it just made a practical sense to push it to the subsequent elected term so whomever is elected in those roles for that term would benefit from that salary increase. Now, there still is some discussion to be had at the council for the ordinances and the process by which future salaries in those positions would be governed, so that will come whenever we put it on the agenda in the ordinance committee.

QATV’s Joe Catalano: The mayor talked about distraction. Was that part of the reasoning behind the deferment?

Cain: Yeah, that was his direct quote, and I agree with him. I think this has been a distraction. I just even want to stress the two issues that we’re talking about [in this podcast]... we’re also talking about huge amounts of roadway work and infrastructure work. Huge amounts of cost savings to the city for work that's being done across the city, between electricity infrastructure and more roadway and infrastructure work itself. Those are the real tangible things that I know that my constituents in ward 3 care about. They still care more about that work, they care about the trees being trimmed, they care about the trash being picked up, they care about the snow being plowed in the winter. I think that there are so many good things going on in Quincy in terms of our growth, and as we’re heading towards the 400th anniversary of the establishment of this great city. Yeah, I think this has been a big distraction. I’ve said it in the Sun and I'll say it here. I just think that people have easily bit onto this as an issue to grab onto, and it’s a sort of continuum of issues I think that we’ve seen, at last I’ve seen in my tenure as a city council. I think there are bigger fish and things to do in the city. And to continue working forward to make this city better than it is.

Joe C: Have you decided whether or not you’ve running for reelection next year?

Cain: I’m enjoying the role that I'm playing right now. I’m trying to make sure that I can finish projects that I've started. And that I can give the same level of energy that I made a commitment to since I first ran in 2015. So I’m working on getting this municipal broadband project over the line, and if I feel that I still have all to give to the residents of Quincy, I think I got a little time to make that decision. We’re still in the first half of the term. But I certainly will make a decision in the coming months.

What just happened?

Well, we aren’t sure. But this is today’s press release from the city:

Mayor, Councilors Won’t Accept Raises Until New Elected Terms

Mayor Thomas Koch and City Council President Ian Cain announced today that the salary increases set for elected officials will be deferred until the start of the next elected terms—2026 for the Council and 2028 for the Mayor.

“There’s a lot of important work ahead, and we don’t need distractions. I love this job, I love Quincy, and I’m committed to making sure we stay on track for progress,” said Mayor Koch.

“We’ve listened to feedback from the community and, after careful consideration, we’re making the prudent decision to defer these raises,” said Council President Cain.

Both Mayor Koch and Council President Cain expressed their commitment to maintaining transparency and ensuring that any future salary adjustments are fair and thoughtful. The deferred raises are codified through the original ordinance, and a formal process will be established to guide any future adjustments.

“This structured approach will allow for greater clarity moving forward, providing a clear framework for how and when raises are addressed in the future,” Council President Cain added.

Needless to say, we were surprised. We learned about this development from members of the press contacting us for comment. We released a statement to the press before we were able to see the exact wording of the city’s announcement. It reads:

A Just Quincy is very gratified to hear that the elected leaders of Quincy have decided to pause and take into account the voices of the people they represent. We look forward to reading the city’s official announcement and supporting legislation and consulting on both with legal and financial experts within our group. And we will continue to pursue AJQ’s mission of making Quincy’s government more just, accountable, and transparent by providing information to residents and supporting leaders and candidates who uphold these values.

It is our sincere hope that this is a step towards the complete rescinding of the raise ordinances and a fair, transparent process that leads to sensible raises for our elected leaders. Of course, we have questions on how this will all work out and what is meant by certain parts of the press release. But, for tonight, we are putting aside these questions, giving the city and the process the benefit of the doubt, and crediting our leaders for being responsive to the concerns of the residents.

We encourage everyone who supports A Just Quincy to enjoy this hopeful feeling and stay vigilant with us. Our movement started with anger over the raises, but our mission is beyond that now.

On that note, you should get a sign to hang up for Halloween.

Discussing the Sun part 2: Explain away Salarygate? Cain’s not able.

Or:
Discussing the Sun part 2: No need to hear from citizen ~Cain

The Quincy Sun had another item in the Sept. 26th edition that had a lot of AJQers scoffing and guffawing: an interview with Council President Ian Cain about the raises and those of us who oppose them. This surprised me because when Joe Catalano asked him on AM Quincy if he had any comment about those who rallied on September 9th, he responded with a simple “no.” But since then he has decided he has more to say.

One of the first points Councilor Cain wants to make is that he feels there are numerous issues, other than these raises, that do not seem to stir up this kind of reaction.

“I point to numerous other issues where we can’t get anyone to pay attention that have much more potentially detrimental consequences to the city for future generations. I will always point to the $475 million pension obligation bond, which was fulfilling a liability with a liability that if, at any point in time, we don’t make the market threshold for those returns that it needs to continue paying down the debt, then that will have some serious consequences. I’m most proud of that one vote.” Quincy pension bond passes with last-minute additional vote, amendment (patriotledger.com)

What jumped out at me on this point is that this is not an issue before the city council at the moment. When it was, Councilors Cain, Liang, and Mahoney voted against the bond, but it still went through. So I’m not sure why he feels “that’s the most consequential vote” he’s taken as a councilor, and I don’t really understand what that has to do with the issue of the raises.

Councilor Cain then had some generalizations about the people who are upset about this issue:

“...the people who are the leading voices on them…are the same people [who were upset over] Black Lives Matter, different environmental things, some of them are part of the ceasefire group….A lot of this feels personally directed to the councilors or the mayor.”

This has been a go-to strategy out of the Salarygate playbook from the beginning: dismiss those who are fighting against these raises as “haters” who are just against the mayor or the councilors. They are nothing if not consistent. And I’m not sure why people can’t have opinions on the other issues too.  We can hold many thoughts in our head. Maggie, share some of the many thoughts in your head.

Maggie: So much to unpack with this one. Councilor Cain just got finished saying that the raises are not the most important issue facing the city. But here he dismisses other issues that constituents care about. Does he only take people’s concerns seriously if he thinks they are important? 

Also, why does he think that people expressing their views on any policy issue is “personally” directed at city leaders? It is literally their job to listen to constituents so they can represent their interests. None of this is personal.

Finally, his comments make it sound like the raises matter to only a few chronic complainers. But more than 6,000 Quincy residents signed our petition to repeal the mayor’s raise. That’s nearly five times the number who voted for Councilor Cain in his recent unsuccessful bid to become a US senator. The truth is, the raises are widely and wildly unpopular, and no amount of official gaslighting will change that.

Joe: The councilor does not seem to see any need for a public hearing now, nor did he see a need before they voted in June.

“The process was public, like everything we do it was out in the open, transparent with light on it.” 

Maggie: Um, what process? There was a finance committee meeting on the mayor’s raise, which Councilor Cain did not actually attend. At that meeting, several councilors commented that the raise was on the high side and lamented the “process” by which it was proposed. But they did not engage in a debate with each other about either the amount or the process, and all but one voted to support the raise in its entirety.

Joe: I’ve noticed that people in power often seem to think that by conducting their corruption out in the open, they somehow absolve themselves of guilt. Also, he’s not really answering Scott Jackson’s question. Whether or not the “process” was done out in the open does not really address whether the public should have had a chance to speak first.

When asked if there may have been less outcry if they would have heard more from the people, Cain remarked:

“I think there would have been a group of people displeased about any number, any change to the number in any of these roles.”

Here we have another familiar refrain from the Salarygate keepers – that we don’t think there should have been any raise at all. This shows that they really do not have a legitimate defense of these raises. I find this rationale particularly annoying because they did not test this theory by proposing any other numbers. How about they rescind the mayor’s raise and come back to us after some public input with, say, a 20% raise, and let’s see how displeased we are then.

Councilor Cain was asked about having a monthly open forum to let citizens speak on issues, similar to the school committee’s “open forum” session.

“I don’t think that’s part of our form of government…This is set up that we elect people to be the voice of the people.”

This can’t be a coincidence right? The Mayor said something very similar when he defended reducing the time school committee meeting attendees have to speak at open forum. 

It is so creepy when our city councilors and our mayor start sharing talking points with each other. There have been a few instances where the mayor and other elected leaders (including school committee) start reciting these half-baked responses within hours or days of each other.

This mini-lecture on our form of government stinks because they say it as if they are a civics teacher explaining the nuances of government to us, and as if they are revealing some fundamental truth that will end the argument. In reality, there is no reason our form of government can’t have public forums. 

Maggie: Totally! I recently called six Massachusetts cities with the same (“plan A”) government type as Quincy, and I found out that most offer more opportunities for public input than Quincy:

• Boston (pop. 676,000) offers public comment at council committee meetings, which happen multiple times every week

• Springfield (pop. 156,000) offers half an hour of "speakout" time before council meetings, with three minutes of time allotted to each speaker

• Fall River (pop. 94,000) offers "citizens input time" at all council and committee meetings (30 minutes, 3 min/person, although I was told they extend the time if there are a lot of people who want to say something)

• Lynn (pop. 101,000) held a public hearing ahead of a recent vote on raising city councilors’ salaries

• Somerville (pop. 81,000) allows residents to send in comments by email that are read out during council meetings

If other cities can do this, why can’t Quincy?

Joe: Well, if you listen to Councilor Cain, he claims he used to have public meetings, and no one attended.

Maggie: When we discussed this at a recent meeting of A Just Quincy members, at least one member said that she had been to some of Councilor Cain’s meetings, and they were well attended. But even if that weren’t the case, why is Councilor Cain making this argument about a lack of public engagement now? That’s clearly not the situation with the raises – thousands of people signed petitions to repeal them, and hundreds have signed letters asking for public meetings to discuss them. Lack of public interest is not an issue here.

Joe: Another prepackaged talking point that is making the rounds: Public forum is unnecessary when the elected leaders make themselves available already.

Mayor Koch at a School Committee meeting on how people can reach out individually instead of speaking at School Committee meetings

-Peter Blandino The Patriot Ledger September 12, 2024

“I have always tried to create more avenues for communication. It’s not like we don’t make ourselves available. We’ve got phones. We’ve got emails.”

-Ian Cain, The Quincy Sun, September 26, 2024

Maggie: Here’s the problem with that. People do reach out individually – and what they usually get back, based on everything we’ve experienced ourselves and heard from other people, is crickets. Our calls and emails disappear into a black hole. And unless people share elected officials’ response rates, as we’ve started doing with our email campaign about the raises, no one else knows just how unresponsive our elected officials are. Which is undoubtedly why politicians like the current system. 

But with public forums, everyone can plainly see how many people are upset about a particular issue and hear why they’re upset. People can respond to each other’s points and, ideally, get a deeper and clearer understanding of an issue. Elected officials have to listen – or at least be present to hear – those statements, and constituents can watch their reactions. Journalists can follow up with elected officials to see what changes, if any, will result from the comments made in public forums. The end result is more accountability from elected officials and more transparency in how government runs. That is what many Quincy politicians claim they want when they run for office – now it’s time for them to put their money where their mouth is and give the public an opportunity to be heard.

Joe: To me, it doesn’t pass the sniff test. They have public hearings when they are convinced the public will be on their side. In 2018, the mayor and city councilors had a meeting in Squantum Elementary’s gymnasium where a couple hundred people showed up to show solidarity against Boston’s plans to rebuild the bridge. The crowd that showed up was overwhelmingly in agreement. But a public meeting is more important when there are opposing views. Having a public meeting to soak up the applause and get some thank yous from the crowd is weak. Gathering people in masses to make the case that you deserve a 79% raise would have been gutsy.

In the end, I doubt Councilor Cain convinced anyone that the city council is showing real leadership at this time. His words, in my opinion, reflect echo-chamber thinking. I’m not sure if he truly believes what he’s saying or if he thinks this strategy will keep the train moving long enough for people to stop chasing it. If it’s the latter, it’s going to be a slog for him — people are not going away, and AJQ’s numbers rise each month.

I suggest that our elected leaders rescind the raise ordinances and start over with a process that includes apples-to-apples comparisons to similar mayors and takes into account the opinions of Quincy residents. After all, our property taxes fund these decadent raises, head-scratching land grabs, and inexplicable deals with certain developers.

Discussing The Sun

Part 1: Wait a minute, Mr. Postman

The Quincy Sun has had some impactful pieces lately. In the next couple of posts, you will get a “fly on the wall” view to Maggie’s and my conversation about this.

The Quincy Sun plays an important role in providing a forum for both elected leaders and Quincy's residents.

Joe: Last week’s Quincy Sun had a couple interesting pieces that affect AJQ — I thought I’d get some of your input. Maggie, you were the first person to let me know that a new letter submission policy was coming from the Sun regarding the “letters to the editor” section. You had heard directly from the editor-in-chief/publisher (Robert Bosworth) that they weren’t taking any letters for the upcoming edition and that they’d be publishing a “revised” policy instead. Can you summarize what the Sun’s letter-writing policy is as of 9/25/2024?

Maggie: Sure – the big new change is that reader’s forum letters can no longer be emailed in but instead have to be printed and then mailed or hand-delivered to the Sun’s office in Quincy Center. Letters also have to include the writer’s name, address, phone number, and signature for identity verification – apparently to cut down on writers submitting letters under fake names, which the editor says has been happening in recent weeks.

Joe: I am not crazy about any policy that makes it harder for people to submit a letter. With the elected leaders making public comment increasingly rare, the publication of letters to The Quincy Sun has been one of the main ways people could express a public opinion on what’s going on with the city. Did you have any reaction to the submission procedure?

Maggie: I was surprised. I often recognize letter writers’ names from real life, and the paper has never allowed aliases or anonymous letters. So it didn’t seem like the old policy had led to a spate of “fake” published letters. But if fake submissions are on the rise, why not just require an address and phone number in all emailed letters? That’s how other papers verify people’s identities.

This paper-only policy seems intended to cut down on all letter submissions, which makes me sad both as a former journalist and as a subscriber who reads the letters before anything else in the paper. The Sun is going to be much less relevant to me now.

Joe: Mr. Bosworth went on to add some other restrictions:

no personal attacks no duplications, reprints, copies one letter per 4 week period The Sun reserves the right to end debate on a topic

not in bad taste should not exceed 400 words one letter per subject matter

not libelous no form letters or submissions to other papers The Sun can edit or refuse submissions

Maggie: I’m fine with most of those statements, and they’re in line with letters policies at many other papers. But two worry me: one letter per subject matter and the right to “end debate” on a topic.

It remains to be seen how broadly “subject” will be defined for the one-letter-per-subject rule. The raises have been a developing story that started half a year ago with what many of us feel was a flawed consultant’s report and then proceeded with protests, a finance committee meeting, a unanimous council vote in support of the mayor’s and council’s raises, a massive petition movement to repeal the raises, and more protests. Would the new policy have considered each of these developments a separate​ subject? I hope so — otherwise people wouldn't be able to react to new twists in stories that unfurl over months and years.

Even more concerning to me is the Sun’s assertion that it can “end debate” on a topic. How is that consistent with the values of a free press? Journalism should celebrate and promote free speech and thoughtful discourse, not threaten to shut it down. This rule gives me chills.

Joe: Well, it will be interesting to see how these guidelines affect the city’s discourse. The Quincy Sun plays a vital role in gathering citizen feedback, especially as public opportunities to express opinions on our elected leaders’ decisions are dwindling.

In part two of this conversation, we will break down Councilor Cain’s thoughts on public forums and the need for community input. Maggie and I will share our perspectives on that, along with other statements Councilor Cain made in his interview in the Sun. Check ajustquincy.com for all the latest content.

It’s fall, y’all

Quincy folks filing into the Quincy City Council meeting moments before they were told their signs could not come with them.

The day after the Nine Nine rally, City Council President Ian Cain happened to have his routine check-in on AM Quincy with Joe Catalano (Joe C), who asked if he wanted to comment on the raise protest. “No,” Councilor Cain answered. This struck me as unfortunate and dismissive. I wasn’t expecting praise or capitulation, and I wouldn’t have been surprised by criticism. However, I would have expected an acknowledgment that a significant number of residents remain unhappy with the upcoming raises for the council and mayor, and that these residents have not felt heard.

So, if Councilor Cain wasn’t going to acknowledge the frustration of some of the city’s residents on AM Quincy, we figured it was time to check back in with Joe C ourselves. So AJQ’s executive committee – Maggie McKee, Spencer Henderson, and I – stopped in for a chat last week.

One of the main things we talked about was how the city is moving away from resident input. Maggie contacted six other cities with a similar (“plan A”) government to Quincy – Boston, Springfield, Lynn, Fall River, Newton, and Somerville – to see what avenues their residents have to address elected officials in open forums. Most have more channels for resident feedback than Quincy, which seems to be curtailing or avoiding the few opportunities it does provide (see, for example, recent changes to the public comment period of school committee meetings, or this video of residents being told they can’t bring signs into the first council meeting after the summer break).

We conveyed to Joe C that AJQ’s mission had formalized and grown a bit since we last spoke with him. Repealing or reducing the raises is not our only focus; reestablishing democratic values will be at the heart of our future endeavors. 

I hope you will find a few minutes to check out our AM Quincy segment.  The entire interview is here and a shorter version with clarifying graphics can be seen here.

Oh what a night! (not so late September)

Post by Joe Murphy
Opinions are his own

Well Nine Nine lived up to the hype.

The rally was a big success. If the powers that be in Quincy hoped the outrage would die down over the summer, we certainly disabused them of that notion. I’m not exactly sure how many people showed up to express their anger over Salarygate—around 100 according to the Boston Globe. The evening began with speeches from some of the usual AJQ voices. All the while, Scott Jackson and Bob Bosworth from the Quincy Sun, Peter Blandino from the Patriot Ledger, and a reporter from the Globe (whose name I didn’t catch) arrived to cover the event. (I updated www.ajustquincy.com/press to show the latest)

At around 6:30, we headed inside to secure seats. However, at the door, Quincy police informed us they had orders from City Council President, Ian Cain, to bar any signs from the meeting. [putting aside whether or not this was a lawful prohibition for the sake of this recap] Although the officers were following the law to the best of their knowledge, some in the crowd felt their freedom of expression was unfairly restricted. Given we hadn’t been allowed to address these raises in a public forum—and with many of our communications to the council going unanswered—bringing in our signs felt like our last opportunity for free speech. But, AJQ was not about to be scolded or sent to the corner that night.

Me: (aside) I have always hated how city council meetings in Quincy do not offer very much opportunity for the public to speak. TV shows have led me to believe that’s an integral part of these meetings.  The only consistent time that the public gets to speak is when utility companies need to take a piece of land to provide their service, e.g. put in a utility pole, etc.  The public can come and speak for or against any of those land use things.  Whenever there is a hot issue that I want to speak at and no opportunity is provided, I think about speaking during one of these National Grid land proceedings. 

I mentioned to my seatmate Mimi Balsamo, a civic activist in Quincy who is far braver than I, that it would be delicious to use this minor public hearing procedure to say what is on my mind.  She wasted no time, got up, and walked to the microphone, “I’m Mimi Balsamo, and I’d like to discuss repealing the raises.”  The crowd erupted in a standing ovation.  I was so proud of her.  Mimi quickly left because mischief had been managed. But that wasn’t the end of the excitement.

Councilor Cain tried to restore order, but this time the crowd was not so easily curbed. You’ll recall the famous scolding from Councilor McCarthy on June 3rd, well that had been on our minds ever since.  It was not going to work twice.  This time the crowd shouted back at Councilor Cain who truly seemed like a deer in headlights. He repeated “We can have this meeting all night” while that sent shivers down my spine as I don’t like being outside my house all that long, for the AJQ crowd there was a palpable “Ok, let’s do that” vibe. He would say “This is not the time for that.” To which the crown responded, “When is the time!” and “Then make a time.” Councilor Cain simultaneously expressed willingness to have a conversation about free speech, while saying that he was not going to have a back and forth dialog. Eventually he threatened to have the police escort people from the room.  No one in our crowd wanted to put the good police officers in that position. But we had made ourselves heard.

A few minutes later the ordinance committee had come to an end and there was a 4 minute break before the main council meeting was to begin.  AJQ quickly huddled up and decided that we were going to walk out now while there was still light outside.  We made a quick adjustment to the plan to wait until the meeting was back in session.  We had a false start to allow for the Pledge of Allegiance and the open-meeting law announcement, but as soon as councilor Cain called the first agenda item, we stood, turned our backs on them, and filed out of the meeting.  Someone was heard saying “You turn your backs on us, we will do so to you.”

The people of Quincy are done being ignored.

But that’s not all.

We placed ourselves right beneath the windows of the grand council chamber and we had a good hour or so of chanting. We worked hard to be heard in the meeting.  Some of the chants were:

• 3% payraise, not 79

• Stop salarygate

• Shame on you

• We’re still here

• Vote them out

• The raise is too high, we wonder why

City Council could hear us from outside. (The windows on the 2nd floor are to the city council chamber)

Loud and proud

Eventually the meeting ended and we watched as, one by one, the city councilors exited out the back of city hall. However, one city councilor came out to address the crowd.  Ward 4 Councilor James Devine, came and stood in front of our group, some of whom were riled up, and spoke with us. I give him a ton of credit.  It showed courage and integrity.  I was impressed.  Now, that is not to say that we agreed with each other, but I truly thing we heard each other.

As city councilors left out the back door, concerned citizens had strong words for them.

Councilor Devine heard from a lot of concerned residents after the meeting.

“Why won’t you just get over this?”
”It’s over, let it go.”
”Why do you care what someone else makes? Jealous?”

These are some of the comments AJQ supporters have heard, but yesterday is a prime example of why we haven’t given up. We are still denied the right to speak, so we have to find creative ways to be heard. We are denied public meetings, and we’re told we can’t bring signs into council meetings—so we stand outside and shout. Our councilors refuse to meet with us but have no problem scolding us. Quincy, a city that birthed two presidents, one of whom was a Founding Father, is seeing democracy falter right now.

Last spring, the mayor proposed two raise ordinances, and the city council approved them. We call it Salarygate. It involved 10 individuals—one to propose the legislation and nine to approve it. Ten individuals, who just so happen to be the only ones benefitting from it. This will cost Quincy taxpayers $256,000 a year, starting in January.
But thanks in part to the actions of AJQ,

• the raises of the city council were lowered $3,000 (3k x 9 councilors = $27,000 savings per year)

• one councilor is declining the raise, (assuming he can do that, that is $13,500 in savings per year)

• the people have been given a voice

We need all hands on deck as we go forward. We are going to stay on our elected leaders about these raises and we are going to identify a new generation of leadership to vote in next year. One way or another, we will take it back.

Oh, and one more thing.

Happy NINE NINE!

It’s Monday, September 9th, 2024.
HAPPY NINE NINE!
A blog post by Joe Murphy

Today is the day we have been looking forward to for a few months now. This evening at 5:30 p.m., many people will gather by the John Adams Statue at the Hancock Adams Green to protest the exorbitant raises our elected officials gave themselves last spring.

The Mayor proposed one ordinance to increase his salary by 79% and a separate ordinance to increase the City Council’s salary by 58%. The City Council ended up approving raises of 79% and 50%, respectively. These ordinances increased the taxpayer-funded salaries by $256,000 per year.

As we prepare to gather tonight, here is a reminder of why:

Outrageous Amount

The mayor proposed raises far higher than local, state, or national norms.  As we have pointed out repeatedly, the raise that Mayor Koch is scheduled to receive in 2025 would make him one of the top-paid mayors in the country (the third highest paid mayor of any major city in the US).

“Normally, an electorate would look at this and say ‘You’re kidding,’” veteran political consultant Tony Cignoli told MassLive. “This is an exorbitant pay increase, it’s become national news — you have the mayor of Quincy getting paid more than the mayors of Boston and New York City. As a consultant, I’d have a field day with this.”

If anyone doubts how shocking these increases are, I encourage them to ask their friends or family in other towns what they think. It is not usual for Quincy to make national news for administrative and budgetary reasons.

Suspicious rationale

The Mayor’s raise was justified by the Dorminson report, an analysis commissioned by the Quincy Finance Office.  The principals of Dorminson are connected to Quincy’s Chief Financial Officer, Eric Mason. Dorminson has signed a new contract with the city that includes a 20% increase to their rates.

Dorminson made their case by comparing the Mayor’s salary to city/town managers.  An apples to orange comparison. Town managers are hired, not elected, are reviewed for their performance and can be fired if they don’t meet expectations. Town managers are employed to carry out policy as set by elected leaders by supervising the administrative operations of the town.  Mayors are elected leaders who are expected to set policy. Mayors are public servants, not corporate CEOs. This reality is reflected in government up to the President, whose salary would fall far below market rate, especially if compared to private-sector counterparts.

To justify the mayoral raise, city councilors seemed to employ some fallacious reasoning:

Strawman arguments:
Many people are not Mayor Koch supporters and they want no raise at all. This argument comes up often, and we have to swat at it like so many flies. The vast majority of residents who are against these raises would support a sensible and fair increase for these positions. AJQ does not have a consensus on what those numbers should be, but some of us, as individuals, have suggested applying the raises that teachers and city workers have received over the past 10 years.

The number will be right, eventually.
Some councilors and the mayor’s office seem to be under the impression that this is the only opportunity we will have to make a salary adjustment. Rather, they seem to be thinking of this raise like a parent might buy shoes for their growing child: “you’ll grow into it.” Don’t worry if the number is outrageously high; it will be correct someday. Depending on which councilor or city official you are talking to, the number could be right in 2, 5, or 10 years. It does not seem to matter that the city’s taxpayers are paying for it now. It does not seem possible to them to set the number correctly for 2025 and then evaluate it again in 2026 or 2027.

No resident input

Though public hearings were called for by many residents, including many members of AJQ, those requests were completely disregarded by the City Council and Mayor. Letters from concerned residents appeared in the Quincy Sun. 
examples: www.ajustquincy.com/blog/thoughtsfromaquincyresident and www.ajustquincy.com/blog/joemurphyletter
But these letters did not prompt public hearings.  Citizens wrote numerous emails to their city council, asking for a meeting and/or asking them to reconsider. Most of these people did not receive a response.

Shameful timing

We had a city election within the past year. The mayor and the city council were all on the ballot, and there was no mention of a raise during these campaigns. The salary levels of all our elected leaders are set by statute, so there should have been no surprises to anyone. The mayor has famously had the same salary for the past ten years. The city councilors have also had the same pay rate for many years. Every one of these elected leaders ran for office last year and was sworn in just weeks before the topic of raises came up in April. They knew what the job paid, they ran for and accepted the job, and then immediately asked for more money. I use the term “asked for” loosely since there was no asking at all. The only people who had a say in this raise were the ten people receiving the additional money. This was discussed on AM Quincy with Joe Catalano, back in June.

Many of the people reading this work for businesses, perhaps owning businesses. Imagine going through stacks of resumes, conducting various 1st, 2nd, and 3rd interviews, perhaps passing on equally qualified candidates, and deciding on the person you think is right for the job. Then, two months after they start, they ask for a 50% (or even 79%) raise. The people of Quincy are stuck with these elected leaders for 1-3 more years, at minimum. Would any of the readers in the private sector have allowed their new hires to renegotiate their pay with a clause in their contract that says they can’t be let go for 1-3 more years?

NINE NINE RALLY!
It will be nice to see everyone out in the plaza again. We haven’t been together in a big group since the 7/7 rally and our meeting at the library. You may see some press joining us as well. Most AJQ supporters can speak passionately about this issue already, but if anyone wants to review more information you can:

1. Scroll through the blog.

2. The page that started it all, our information page.

3. The new feature, the who’s who.

4. Our press page, which has articles and segments by local and not so local journalists.

5. Our YouTube page has a lot of videos to go over.

   1. Maggie and Joe on AM Quincy

   2. A Just Quincy explains it all

   3. Our first and second episodes of the AJQ videocast

Well, I hope you found this refresher helpful. Maybe you were reminded of some points you had not thought of in a while. Maybe you got riled up just enough to make the idea of spending an evening with the city council a bit more appealing. Or maybe it was an unnecessary reminder of why we are investing our time and energy.
See ya soon!

~Joe

Who’s who in Salarygate?

By Joe Murphy
Views and opinions are his own.

Hi all,

It is said that for everything there is a season, and fighting Salarygate is turn-turn-turning into a multi-season effort. Many A Just Quincy volunteers have dedicated large chunks of their summer to this cause, and as I write this, we have reached the final day of August. It’s Labor Day weekend, and the summer is officially concluding. When Salarygate first unfolded towards the end of May, the school year was winding down, and we made signs and stood out in front of city hall ahead of the final two city council meetings of the session. Now, 89 days since the June 3rd meeting, we again find ourselves getting ready to stand out in city hall plaza before the first city council meeting of the upcoming session.

When the city council signed the ordinances raising the mayoral and council salaries, we had only 20 days to get 12% of the registered voters to sign our petition. At that time, I remarked, “This is a sprint, not a marathon.” Well, that effort concluded shy of the goal, and the sprint portion ended. Since then, we have been in marathon mode. Marathons are long and arduous, but they give you more time. You don’t have to get a good jump at the beginning to finish or perform well in these races. So, it is not too late for anyone to help make a difference and have your opinion heard.

One of the ways AJQ helps people get involved is by providing information. Information is fuel to the collective fire. So we create content and put the word out where people will hopefully find it. To that end, our latest bucket of information fuel is an infographic explaining who’s who in Salarygate. It is our hope that no one following AJQ will ever feel uninformed when speaking about this to their friends and neighbors.

The last listing in the “who’s who” is “you,” the residents of Quincy. You can end up being the most important character in this fight. It will ultimately be up to you to decide if the elected officials’ strategy of waiting out the outrage will work or whether they will be forced to backtrack or face a loss in their next election.

Let us know if there are others we should include in our character profiles.

click on the PLAYBILl to see the “who’s who” infographic.

At NINE NINE rally, citizens will demand leaders rescind raises

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Quincy residents who oppose the mayor’s and council’s pay raises, which will cost taxpayers an additional quarter of a million dollars a year starting in January, will rally at City Hall Plaza on Monday, September 9, to demand that the council rescind the raises and involve the public in future raise discussions. 

The “Nine Nine” rally is being organized by A Just Quincy, the group that formed to fight the raises and work towards greater accountability and transparency in the city.

Residents are encouraged to bring homemade protest signs to the John Adams statue on the plaza starting at 5:30 pm that day. Later, those who are able to will head into Old City Hall to watch the first council meeting since June 17, when the council voted to increase the mayor’s and council’s salaries by 79 and 50%, respectively.

Those raises proved hugely unpopular with the public. More than 6,030 people physically signed a petition to repeal the mayor’s raise and 4,642 signed a petition to repeal the council’s raise in the 20-day, state-mandated window following the raise votes. Although those figures fell short of the 8,000 or so signatures needed to legally force the repeals, they represent a third and a quarter, respectively, of the number of people who voted in the November 2023 election that brought the mayor and council into office.

“The people have spoken, and they do not want these raises,” says Joe Murphy, founder of A Just Quincy.

City leaders have so far remained silent on the pay boosts, ignoring the vast majority of emails sent to them as part of a recent A Just Quincy campaign asking residents to request that councilors rescind the raises and meet with them. Residents have received zero responses from every councilor except Ward 2’s Richard Ash, who answered three of six emails in AJQ’s campaign (in two he offered to meet to discuss the issue, in one he simply thanked the letter writer for their input); Ward 3’s Ian Cain, who answered one of nine emails (and offered to meet); and Ward 4’s James Devine, who answered one of six (he said the raises were warranted). None of the at-large councilors, Noel DiBona, Nina Liang, or Scott Campbell, answered any of the 30-odd emails that each of them received. Check out your councilor’s response rate at ajustquincy.com/who.

“The mayor and city council’s getaway plan is to wait the outrage out – a move that worked for them when our hospital closed, our property taxes went up, and our land was sold to developers in sweetheart deals,” says Murphy. “It’s up to the people of Quincy to decide if it will work again, and we’re hoping the ‘Nine Nine’ rally will be the next of many actions to show it won’t.”

To join the A Just Quincy email list, go to bit.ly/ajqlist.

Flyer to promote A Just Quincy's NINE NINE Rally