Tag Archives: City Clerk David Rushford

In Worcester government, Discrimination = Disparate Impact

carter
Dr. Carter – Worcester’s Chief Diversity Officer

By Gordon Davis

Disparate Impact discrimination is the legal term that describes discrimination without animus.

It usually is found as a policy that results in an adversely negative impact on a protected class based on a so called neutral or nondiscriminatory policy.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that criminal records disclosures can be considered disparate impacts.

It and other organization have created new policies to ensure that people who have been formerly incarcerated or arrested will get at least a chance for an interview when applying for work.

Another example of disparate impact is the so called School to Jail Pipeline which many people consider racist because it affects a disproportional number of Black Latino and poor students. The institutional mechanism and policies of the School to Jail Pipeline negatively affects all students.

The School to Jail Pipeline’s policies are racist, not because it is based on any negative animus but because it has a disproportional negative impact on Black, Latino and other students.

The solution to the disproportionally negative impact is a rewrite of policies. For Massachusetts the change has seemingly come in M.G.L. Chapter 222.

The opponents of the efforts to reform the policies leading to disparately negative impacts sometimes use the pretext of colorblindness.

We have seen this use by a local columnist to defend a lack of effective programs, the Worcester Police Department and people working in the Worcester Public Schools. In her recent column she said that white teachers are the victims.

A good teacher is a good teacher regardless of protected class or race. We should instead look at the policies that have the negative impact on our children.

It has been pointed out to me that the recent promotions of City of Worcester and Worcester Public School officials could be an example of Disparate Impact:

The present Commissioner of the Worcester Department of Public Works, Mr. Moosey, was, before he was appointed, the next in line to replace then DPW and P Commissioner Mr. Moylan.

Ms. Ledoux, the present Worcester City Clerk, was next in line when she was promoted and replaced her boss, David Rushford who recently retired.

The new City of Worcester Chief of Police, Mr. Sargent, was next in line when he was promoted to replace the retired Chief Gary Gemme.

All the people mentioned above are white and they were all well qualified for their experience and promoted to the top positions with in their respective departments.

There was one exception to this apparent policy of promoting the employee next in line: The Assistant Superintendent of our Worcester Public Schools was passed over in favor of a less qualified candidate. In this particular case the Assistant Superintendent is Latino and the less qualified candidate – now School Superintendent – is white.

In terms of unlawfulness this might not be disparate impact. The hiring process of department heads was not the same or similarly done, as was the hiring of the Worcester School Superintendent. The Worcester School Committee made the decision regarding the Superintendent. The aforementioned city department heads were appointed by either Worcester City Manager Ed Augustus or elected by the Worcester City Council.

Our School Suprintendent is hired by the Worcester School Committee.

However, the hiring of Maureen Benienda as School Superintendent certainly was not in compliance with Affirmative Action policies of the City of Worcester or their intent.

The policies were written to ensure that when a person in a protected class has the same or better qualifications as a candidate not in the protected class, the person in the protected class would be hired.

This Affirmative Action policy has worked very well for the Worcester Police Department for the protected class of armed forces veterans. One hundred percent of police cadets are veterans.

Is there animus in Worcester’s hiring practices?

Maybe there is.

Is there an adversely negative impact in Worcester’s hiring policies?

Yes, there is, as seen in the statistics.

All of the promotions to department heads have been white. The better qualified Latino candidate for School Superintendent is Latino and he was passed over.

Dr. Carter, the recent hire for the newly created Worcester Chief Diversity Officer position, does not seem to have any power to do anything significant.

I believe she is a good person in a position requiring moral courage.

Unfortunately, this was predicted during last summer Department of Justice “dialogues on race.”bThis writer said those “dialogues“ are a joke and that the position of Chief Diversity Officer would be just a token or crumb for “minorities” to fight over.

Pathetic, part 2

At 4:30 p.m. today, TUESDAY, August 12, I drove by Worcester City Hall, hoping to do some business at David Rushford’s City Clerk’s office. I had been calling the office all afternoon and NO ONE was answering the phone!

Then … this: Half of Worcester city hall – salaried municipal employees? –  lead by City Clerk Rushford in the tan suit, balding, paunchy, gray hair  … hoofing it outa city hall, crossing Franklin Street. Calling it a day.

It’s bad enough that Worcester City Hall keeps hours that are totally pointless for the average worker – or person who wants to do biz with the city. But when folks leave their posts so early, it makes the city even less accessible than it already is.

This stampede is … pathetic.

Economic development, anyone?        – R. Tirella

CAM00404

CAM00405

CAM00406

From the Desk of City Clerk David Rushford (and a song for him)

After last week’s Election Commission hearing, it’s as if we have our own reality TV show going on at the City Clerk’s office! “David Rushford – Fantasy City Hall!”

When our David Rushford sees a vacuum in the power structure at city hall, he swoops right in to fill it. When he doesn’t like a citizen or someone who questions what the city is doing he SCREAMS at them or intimidates them – or fires them. For David, City Hall = Castle Rushford, a place where he can treat his Worcester subjects with as much disdain as he likes. And feed them to the crocodiles sunbathing in the moat if he’s pissed. And why not? Worcester City Councilors won’t do a thing to stop his bullying (possibly law-breaking) ways. Anyways, here’s the city council agenda (courtesy of David) for tomorrow and a song for him. Click on links below. – R. Tirella

http://www.worcesterma.gov/agendas-minutes/city-council/current.htm

Tune for David Rushford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGtXhqfmWCc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Some thoughts …

By Rosalie Tirella

… on Worcester City Clerk David Rushford

Here’s hoping our state legislators can change the rules, if the Worcester City Council doesn’t have the cajones to take away City Clerk David Rushford’s marrying fees – thousands of dollars on top of his $130,000+ city clerk salary. (see posts below). Recently, the Globe reported that a state legislator is hoping to make it a state-wide law: CITY CLERKS IN MASS TOWNS AND CITIES CAN’T KEEP THE FEES THEY GET EVERY TIME THEY “PERFORM” A WEDDING.

Hooray!

The City of Boston is also on board – trying to do what Worcester City Councilors Phil Palmeiri and Konnie Lukes are hoping to do – ending this shameless municipal double-dipping ASAP.

Rushford is an utter prima donna – the king of a fiefdom that BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS! Rude, curt, loud-mouthed, vindictive. The folks who work for him know his temper-tantrum-prone personality.

But let’s forget Rushford’s bag-of-nails  personality – let’s just put an end to the fleecing of the taxpayers – in Worcester and Mass.

2. Mitt Romney is a lying profiteer. No more. No less. God help this country if he becomes president. The guy will say anything to get elected, twisting the truth so it resembles a pretzel and … NOT THE TRUTH.

Interesting article in the New York Times, re: how the savvy Romney has TOTALLY DISTORTED President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. This guy is a dangerous liar! This guy has no moral code. Remember last presidential cycle? Remember how Romney was disliked by ALL the other presidential candidates? This is why: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/opinion/krugman-the-post-truth-campaign.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

3. “Senator” Scott Brown. Imagine! If a woman politician whined to reporters that her colleagues in Washington DC were not being nice to her, playing politics with her – just the way they have been playing them with each other since this country was founded – people would laugh! They would label her a big cry baby and tell her a la President Harry Truman to get out of the kitchen if she can’t stand the heat! Instead, the pointless, Wall Street-lovin’ Brown gets a sympathetic story on why being a US Senator is hell on earth! Why a wonderful guy such as he is being roughed up by his fellow pols.

Scott is just as savvy as Romney and probably a bigger and better bull shit artist. He has no respect for the working guy/gal; he is weird, too. Coming out about being sexually molested just – let’s be honest – to get national press and sell his book.  Posing nude for a magazine – after being molested as a kid!Offering up his daughters to guys during his speech on election night!

Therapy is what Brown needs. Elizabeth Warren is what Massachusetts needs! Please check out http://elizabethwarren.com/

Warren for U.S. Senate!!

Worcester City Clerk David Rushford: The Marrying Man? (parts 1 & 2)

(editor’s note: We ran these pieces a few years ago. Seems like Mayor-elect Joe Petty missed them – and is going to enable Rushford. Shame on Petty. This is not the way things should go down. No, Joe P., the solution – a done deal, no doubt – will not be “amendable” to all parties! – R. Tirella)

By Rosalie Tirella

Let’s see: the city is cash strapped, the state is cash strapped (until the new MA state sales tax kicks in!) and the country is searching for the bootstraps it needs to pull itself out of this financial hell hole. What better time for Worcester City Clerk David Rushford to add as much as $95,000 to his base salary of $131,000!

Meet David Rushford – Worcester’s Marrying Man!

This Sunday we learned that Rushford, who is already closing the Worcester City Clerk’s office a couple of hours earlier than 5 p.m (creating banking hours for himself and his staff while still collecting the same pay check) has been making some serious side money ON CITY TIME and CITY PROPERTY marrying people. He won’t say how much he charges, but thanks to yet another whacky Massachusetts law, Rushford, or any city/town clerk in Massachusetts can charge $50 – $95 every time he/she officially marries a couple.

You would think that the fee would go to the city or town. After all, the momentous event is happening in a city or town hall. It is being performed by a city/town clerk who is working at his city/town job in a city/town hall (thus collecting his/her city/town pay check). You would think with all the whining David Rushford has done about losing a few city clerks and not being able to perform all his work with the staff he’s got, that he would be tickled pink if marrying people meant more moeny for the City of Worcester. Maybe then City Manager Mike O’Brien could rehire some of Rushford’s city clerks he laid off earlier.

Nope. The dough goes to the city/town clerk doing the marrying.

Last year, Rushford married 950 couples. Do the math: 950 x $100 = $95,000!

WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH THIS STATE?! HOW NUTTY CAN WE GO? WE (City of Worcester) LAY OFF CITY NURSES AND TEACHERS AND PARKS PEOPLE AND STILL ALLOW RUSHFORD TO MAKE AS MUCH AS $95,000. WHY DON’T THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN WORCESTER GET RIGHTEOUSLY PISSED AND WORK TO HAVE THIS ARCANE STATE LAW CHANGED SO THAT THE MONEY GOES TO THE CITY OF WORCESTER? Not our city clerk who lives in an amazingly huge mansion on Mass Ave – for being little more than a glorified secretary.

Insane!

Here’s hoping city councilors do something productive during their two summer meetings. Let’s have them petition the state to rescind the law or at least pass some local ordinance that allows the City of Worcester to collect – and KEEP – the fee.

$95,000 could go to Worcester’s parks, city pools – city kids. It could go towards public health, AIDS awareness.

It amazes me to see how Blow Mag and many city pols just seem to enable/excuse this bad behavior. Why? Because they know Rushford. Because they are all in the same boys club, standing in the same swill.

Pathetic.

**********************************************

City Clerk David Rushford, part II

By Rosalie Tirella

This Sunday Worcester City Clerk David Rushford whined about his reputation being sullied via the news rags. Bull shit! Rushford has brought this tsunami on himself.

And let’s give him the benefit of the doubt: OK, David, you only charge $50 per marriage. Let’s do the math. $50 x 950 marriages (the number of couples you married last year) = $47,500.

$47,500!

That’s what you pocketed last year, if we go with the conservative number.

Now let’s take you pal Jordan Levy’s statement – that you usually perform half that number of marriages, that last year was atypical. Half of 950 marriages is 475. Let’s do the math with 475 marriages and the $50 fee:

475 x $50 = $23,750.

Why should the taxpayers of Worcester pay you a nice little sum of $23,750 on top of your base salary of $131,000?

The money belongs to the City of Worcester. That $23,750 could go towards the hiring of a city youth worker – someone who can work with city gang members, some young kid fresh out of college who needs a job, needs a break. That’s the trouble with Worcester – the same people keep giving themselves and their relatives/pals break after break.

Let’s not allow City Clerk David Rushford to be yet another Worcester hog at the municipal trough.

P.S. Rushford lives on Regent Street – the street before Mass Ave.

Worcester City Clerk David Rushford (hog at the municipal trough) and my Christmas gifts …

By Rosalie Tirella
I could write about how I believe Worcester City Councilors Konnie Lukes and Phil Palmeiri are absolutely RIGHT when they say  City Clerk David Rushford needs to get off the city trough and give up all the dough he is making marrying people, as justice of peace in our City Hall – but I won’t. It’s Christmas. 
But I will say this for now since it will come up for a city council vote soon: If Rushford, who makes over $150,000 between his City Clerk job, his Elections Commission job and his private Justice of the Peace business which he is allowed to run out of City Hall  using City Hall space, time etc ,  wants to do the marrying  job on city time using city resources then he should not be allowed to collect the $60 – $100 fee he charges every time he marries a (1) couple. THAT MONEY SHOULD GO TO THE CITY. IT IS A JOB HE IS PERFORMING IN CITY HALL ON CITY TIME.
Doesn’t the guy make enough money? Hasn’t he hogged three jobs all to himself? Does he need to be the justice of peace from hell? I pity his poor clerks this holiday season. They are working for a prima donna – and can’t utter a peeep.
SO: Let’s take Rushford’s windfall – which Rushford won’t disclose to the public (thousands of dollars) – and use his justice of the peace fees to open up a city branch library or run a program for city kids. We hope Worcester follows Boston, whose city coucilors are also pushing for the same reform, when it comes to keeping the “marrying” fees. Let’s hold our city leaders feet to the fire so they do the right thing.
*******************
Here’s my Christmas gift … I read this in the NYTimes recently.  
 InCity Times has been railing against using chimps for medical experiments (most researchers don’t need them to do their research). We wrote story after story about the issue. And now finally – progress.
 Also,  Congress is moving to ban exotic animals in cirucuses.  California is always ahead of the curve – great op/ed in LA Times:
This is exactly what ICTimes has been pushing for …  for YEARS!
Hooray!
So things like this never happen again: Ringling Bros was fined big time for animal abuse/neglect. One violation: Carting away tiger shit in a wheel barrow and then using the same  wheelbarrow to bring the big cats their food.
Pathetic.

City Clerk David Rushford, part II

By Rosalie Tirella

This Sunday Worcester City Clerk David Rushford whined about his reputation being sullied via the news rags. Bull shit! Rushford has brought this tsunami on himself.

And let’s give him the benefit of the doubt: OK, David, you only charge $50 per marriage. Let’s do the math. $50 x 950 marriages (the number of couples you married last year) = $47,500.

$47,500!

That’s what you pocketed last year, if we go with the conservative number.

Now let’s take you pal Jordan Levy’s statement – that you usually perform half that number of marriages, that last year was atypical. Half of 950 marriages is 475. Let’s do the math with 475 marriages and the $50 fee:

 475 x $50 = $23,750.

Why should the taxpayers of Worcester pay you a nice little sum of $23,750 on top of your base salary of $131,000?

The money belongs to the City of Worcester. That $23,750 could go towards the hiring of a city youth worker – someone who can work with city gang members, some young kid fresh out of college who needs a job, needs a break. That’s the trouble with Worcester – the same people keep giving themselves and their relatives/pals break after break.

Let’s not allow City Clerk David Rushford to be yet another Worcester hog at the municipal trough.

P.S. Rushford lives on Regent Street – the street before Mass Ave.

City Clerk David Rushford: The Marrying Man?

By Rosalie Tirella

Let’s see: the city is cash strapped, the state is cash strapped (until the new MA state sales tax kicks in!) and the country is searching for the bootstraps it needs to pull itself out of this financial hell hole. What better time for Worcester City Clerk David Rushford to add as much as $95,000 to his base salary of $131,000!

Meet David Rushford – Worcester’s Marrying Man. This Sunday we learned that Rushford, who is already closing the Worcester City Clerk’s office a couple of hours earlier than 5 p.m (creating banking hours for himself and his staff while still collecting the same pay check) has been making some serious side money ON CITY TIME and CITY PROPERTY marrying people.  He won’t say how much he charges, but thanks to yet another whacky Massachusetts law, Rushford, or any city/town clerk in Massachusetts can charge $50 – $95 every time he/she officially marries a couple.

You would think that the fee would go to the city or town. After all, the momentous event is happening in a city or town hall. It is being performed by a city/town clerk who is working at his city/town job in a city/town hall (thus collecting his/her city/town pay check). You would think with all the whining David Rushford has done about losing a few city clerks and not being able to perform all his work with the staff he’s got, that he would be tickled pink if marrying people meant more moeny for the City of Worcester. Maybe then City Manager Mike O’Brien could rehire some of Rushford’s city clerks he laid off earlier. 

Nope. The dough goes to the city/town clerk doing the marrying.

Last year, Rushford married 950 couples. Do the math: 950  x $100 = $95,000!

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS STATE?! HOW NUTTY CAN WE GO? WE (City of Worcester) LAY OFF CITY NURSES AND TEACHERS AND PARKS PEOPLE AND STILL ALLOW RUSHFORD TO MAKE AS MUCH AS $95,000. WHY DON’T THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN WORCESTER GET RIGHTEOUSLY PISSED AND WORK TO HAVE THIS ARCANE STATE LAW CHANGED SO THAT THE MONEY GOES TO THE CITY OF WORCESTER? Not our city clerk who lives in an amazingly huge mansion on Mass Ave – for being little more than a glorified secretary.

Insane!

Here’s hoping city councilors do something productive during their two summer meetings. Let’s have them petition the state to rescind the law or at least pass some local ordinance that allows the City of Worcester to collect – and KEEP – the fee.

$95,000 could go to Worcester’s parks, city pools – city kids. It could go towards public health, AIDS awareness.

It amazes me to see how Blow Mag and many city pols just seem to enable/excuse this bad behavior. Why? Because they know Rushford. Because they are all in the same boys club, standing in the same swill.

Pathetic.