Ryan requested, ... all documents related to the Subpoena of [an identified individuals] phone records by the Commonwealth in Oct 2016, including the complete Documents of [an identified] State Police Investigators investigation into the Witness Tampering in the K-P Law Deposition for the City of Everett. The AGO responded on October 21, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr.

To the extent the complaint alleges that Councilor Stephanie Martins is not a resident of the City of Everett, in violation of the Citys charter, we decline to review this allegation as it does not allege a violation of the Open Meeting Law. See OML 2021-5. 2 30A, 18-25.

Please also include documents relating to [an identified] Attorneys 2000 hours of Investigation into the City of Everett. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3004 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 15, 2024). In my November 15th determination, I learned that the Office provided Mr. Ryan with a response on November 14, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Offices response, Mr.

Chairwoman Rosa DiFlorio made a statement that there would be no public participation and that she would have her phone on to comminicate [sic] with anybody who needed to get in touch with her during the meeting.4 1 Our office has received additional complaints from you related to the Council and its committees, as well as other public bodies in the City of Everett.

City of Everett, 30 MCSR 277 (2017); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v.

Town of Ludlow, 17 MLC 1191 (1990); City of Everett, 19 MLC 1304, 1311 (1992), aff'd sub nom City of Everett v. Labor Relations Commission, 416 Mass. 620 (1993) and cases cited therein. It is equally well settled that unions have a right to negotiate over the future benefits of existing bargaining unit members.

Ct. 1120, 09-P-559, slip op. at 2; City of Everett, 19 MLC 1304, 1311, MUP-7885 (August 24, 1992), aff'd sub nom. City of Everett v. Labor Relations Commission, 416 Mass. 620 (1993) (and cases cited therein). The stipulations reflect that the retirement plans in effect prior to July 1, 2012 were in place for many years and thus constitute a term and condition of employment established by past practice.

City of Gloucester, 26 MLC 128 (2000); City of Everett, 19 MLC 1304 (1992).

Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney Generals website: https://www.msss.gov/theopen-meeting-law. 1 Sincerely, Carrie Benedon Assistant Attorney General Division of Open Government cc: Frank Parker, Chair, Everett School Committee (via email: Priya Tahiliani, Superintendent, Everett Public Schools (via email: Sergio Cornelio, Clerk, City of Everett (via email: This determination was issued pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, 23(c).

City of Everett, Human Resources Din. 20 MICSR v. City of 257 (2007); Kallas v. Franklin Sch. Dept., | 1 MCSR 73 (1998); Fasano Quincy, 17 MCSR 80 (2004). There is no dispute that the persons promoted in Petersens stead held the same rank as him, and achieved the same score on the COM examination.

City of Everett, 2 MLC 1471 (1976). Thus, the parties after-the fact attempts to ameliorate the impacts of the change do not alter the April 5, 2010 date on which the Union first learned of the conduct that forms the basis of the prohibited practice charge, i.e., the Towns alleged unilateral change to copayments. See Town of Lenox, supra.

O. 01702- 8368 March S, 2ot6 Director of Inspectional Services/ Building Commissioner Telephone: 508- 532- 5500 Fax: 508- 532- 5501 Prestige Properties 68 Chesmut Street Everett, MA 02I49 Attn: Paul Re: Nuisance By- Law Violations at 96 Fay Road Dear Property Manager; 6nclosed herein is a citation for viola[ ion of Article VI, Section IV.