Statement of Greenberg Traurig City of Everett Counsel 030425
Good evening, my name is John Pappalardo and my firm, Greenberg Traurig, represents the City of Everett and the executive branch of its administration. I have been engaged for several years, including the period of the review by the Massachusetts Inspector General, (IG). I provide the following information for your review and consideration.
In March of 2022, approximately 3 years ago, a document request was made by the IG to provide materials and information in connection with longevity ordinances in Everett. We were immediately instructed by the administration on behalf of the City to fully cooperate with this request as well as subsequent requests by the IG. We voluntarily provided all requested documentation for 8 years such as emails, attaclunent spreadsheets, notes and other materials. In addition, we made current and former City employees available for interviews as requested through and including February of 2025.
This investigation began at a time that was highly political, as it coincided with a mayoral election. It is worth noting that the ordinance which was the subject of the investigation was enacted 6 years prior, in 2016. There was no issue much less concern about this ordinance for 6 years. In addition, it is also clear that certain information was provided by one or more individuals who have been publicly discredited.
The IG’s office is and administrative organization that is empowered to review information and make recommendations. It is important to note while the I G reviews information, it is a closed process. There is no ability to contest the proceeding, confront witnesses, or provide a different analysis. Because these conclusions are strictly one sided, there is no provision to appeal. For the same reason, the IG has no authority to implement recommendations, it can only refer information to an adjudicatory body.
That said, a fair reading of the I G’s report contains conclusions which are unsupported and without foundation. Based upon information available, including actual evidence such as witness statements, interview reports, contemporaneous videos of City Council proceedings, emails and media accounts of public events, the I G’s conclusions are flawed. The overwhelming evidence is clear that the longevity ordinance, which is the subject of this report, was not proposed, drafted or voted upon by the Mayor or any person in the executive branch of the City of Everett.
The Administration has always made best efforts to compensate the Mayor as authorized. The City Council may not be aware that, on multiple occasions, the City inadvertently failed to pay the Mayor certain amounts due to him, including longevity bonuses under the pre-2016 ordinance that applied to him as well as cost of living increases to his salaiy over a period of several years. Not only did the City not make any overpayments to the Mayor, but the City underpaid the Mayor. These matters were brought to the Mayor’s attention, and the City rectified these missed payments.
Statement on behalf of Mayor DeMaria and Everett CFO (3.4.25)
Good evening. I’m Young Paik, counsel for the Mayor and for the City’s Chief Financial Officer. Mayor DeMaria and Mr. Demas have asked me to address the council about the letter sent by the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General and to urge this council to act only when it has the benefit of all the facts and all perspectives.
The OIG’s letter to this council was just that, a letter. It is right to take it seriously, as this council is doing. But it’s important for everyone here to understand that the OIG’s investigation was not an adjudicatory process. There were no hearings allowing the parties to question witnesses or present evidence. There was no burden of proof. There was no arbiter of facts. The OIG has issued an opinion, based solely on its own interpretation of documents and mostly unidentified witness statements. This council can and should move deliberately to develop its own understanding of what really happened.
Both my clients were shocked and dismayed at the conclusions drawn by the OIG, false conclusions drawn about their intentions and professional integrity. And as their attorney who’s been privy to the facts and underlying documents in this matter, I must say that, frankly, I am disappointed and disturbed by the OIG’s letter, not only because it’s one-sided, but also due to its use of inflammatory language that’s unnecessary and unmerited.
The following is undisputed: First, the newspaper that primarily heralded the accusations at issue has since admitted to lying and fabricating evidence. Second, the ordinance in question was proposed by this council and considered by this council publicly, for all to see. Third, the manner in which the Mayor’s administration executed the ordinance was published in the City’s budget and on the City’s website on multiple occasions, for all to see. Finally, the Mayor and Mr. Demas have throughout this process made themselves and the City’s records openly available to the investigating authorities. They have nothing to hide. And let me be clear: I know of zero evidence-no witness statements, no documents-indicating that the Mayor or Mr. Demas proposed or drafted the longevity ordinance, and zero evidence showing any intent by the Mayor or Mr. Demas to conceal the manner in which the City calculated the Mayor’s longevity payments. Both Mayor DeMaria and Mr. Demas, unequivocally, want to express to this council and to the City of Everett that they sought only to execute the longevity ordinance as they genuinely understood it and as they thought all involved intended it to be. Both are faithful public servants who have worked hard on behalf of the City, with their only goal being to leave the City better than they found it. For the benefit of the city, they respectfully ask this council to act with care and fairness as it debates how to move forward.
Both Mayor DeMaria and Mr. Demas, unequivocally, want to express to this council and to the City of Everett that they sought only to execute the longevity ordinance as they genuinely understood it and as they thought all involved intended it to be. Both are faithful public servants who have worked hard on behalf of the City, with their only goal being to leave the City beCer than they found it. For the benefit of the city, they respectfully ask this council to act with care and fairness as it debates how to move forward.