Did Flaherty Purposefully Keep Other City Councilors in the Dark?


Here's the discussion we had with him on MassLive:

SWS to DF: "CC Crean says you never even considered the litigation problem with unions"

You think think that's responsible? You think it's good to spend more money defending a lawsuit than money you save?
 
Bush league, Mr. Flaherty. Bush league.
 

DF to SWS: "Yes, I'd rather spend money defending cuts"

Yes, I think it makes perfect sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars to protect hundreds of thousands or millions of taxpayer dollars. 
 
Caving to union lawsuit threats are the wimpy way out. 
 
The contracts typically contain "dependent upon appropriation" language, and several Appeal and Supreme Judicial court decisions have upheld the concept that the legislative branch of governments in Massachusetts controls the spending of money. 
 
Here are a few cases for you to review:
 
ALLIANCE, AFSCME/SEIU, AFL-CIO v. SECRETARY OF ADMINISTRATION, 413 Mass. 377; 597 N.E.2d 1012; 1992 Mass. LEXIS 447
[More are cases listed here. Remove for clarity because they are not pertinent to our point]


SWF to DF: "You didn't even *consider* the possibility of lawsuits"

The potential for lawsuits wasn't even *discussed*, Dave, by you or other other finance committee members. Because you were *clueless.*
 
And if you *did* know that you opened the city opened up to lawsuits, then that means you *purposefully* withheld that information from the other city councilors.
 
Very, very bush league and dangerous, I might add.

 

Comments