Boston City Hall: Productivity FAIL

So much for productivity in the workplace….employees of the City of Boston are being paid with tax dollars to go on Facebook, Twitter and admittedly, do nothing.

Bored Boston government workers are goofing off on Facebook and other popular social networking sites on taxpayer time, boasting of napping during meetings, playing “Mafia Wars,” creating anagrams of their names and planning Halloween costumes.

The poster girl for the on-the-clock cyber-slacking is Amy Derjue, who earns $39,000 a year as Boston City Council President Michael Ross’ communications director.

The former Boston magazine blogger regularly updates her personal status on Facebook and Twitter throughout the work day, brazenly joking to her online pals about snoozing at a hearing, writing snarky comments about the reality TV show “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” opining on an article about Boston being one of the best cities to meet guys and babbling about her Halloween wig.

“Amy Derjue is going to sit in the Council meeting and nap,” she wrote on Facebook at 11:49 a.m. last Wednesday. The next day, she spent the morning complaining about her chilly City Hall cubicle on Twitter. “Somebody bring me a hot coffee and fluffy sweater, please,” she wrote at 9:32 a.m.

Another workday posting was a link to a cartoon “menstrual flow chart,” to which she commented, “Look at the uterus. It is so cute.” And she was apparently eager to punch out that day, writing at 4:40 p.m.: “20 minutes and I am OUT. Gone. No longer present. Do not contact unless you want to drink, shop, or watch sporting events.”

Really? Must be nice to be communications director at Boston City Hall…goof off all day, and leave early.

Ross said one of the reasons he hired Derjue was to “broaden” his social networking and develop a personality for his office.

“I like what Amy’s doing,” said Ross, adding he encourages Derjue to use Facebook and Twitter to spread his message to constituents. “It’s not so that she’s fritting away her time. . . . She doesn’t have time to waste.”

It think Mr. Ross has a bit of disconnect here. Do you want constituents to know that their tax dollars are being wasted on employees like Ms. Derjue to leave work and go shopping or hit the bars? I certainly wouldn’t. If you want her to use Facebook and Twitter, and other social networking sites to connect with constituents, then Facebook status updates and Twitter tweets would perhaps look like, “City Council President Michael Ross is in a meeting,” or “Boston City Council wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving,” or “We launched our official iPhone app, Citizen Connect,” not links to xkcd, failblog, Texts From Last Night or Graph Jam (to name a few).

In an economic climate that has resulted in fewer services and higher taxes, how can you justify this poor use of tax dollars? You can’t.

This kind of behavior would be completely unacceptable in the private sector, and would be grounds for being dismissed.

Chuck Turner Was “Set Up”

Chuck Turner, caught red handed taking a $1,000 bribe, says he was a victim of a “sting” and he was “set up.”

A Boston city councilor allegedly videotaped accepting a $1,000 bribe says he’s the victim of a “set-up” designed to entrap him and is planning make his case on the steps of City Hall on Monday.

Chuck Turner was arrested Friday and charged with one count of attempted extortion and two counts of making false statements for allegedly accepting cash from an undercover agent working with the FBI as part of a public corruption probe at Boston City Hall and the Massachusetts Statehouse.

“I’m calling a press conference for the press and the community to come to the steps of City Hall where I will talk in even more depth about the picture in the paper, about what I believe is going on in this, what I think is a set-up,” the outspoken five term city councilor told WHDH-TV.

Turner, free on a $50,000 unsecured bond, described his arrest as part of a “sting operation in order to try to entrap me.”

“The only recourse to protect the reputation that I have struggled to build over the last 45 years, a reputation of integrity, is to go on (the) defense,” he said.

Hey Chuck, you are absolutely correct. It was a sting, and you were set up to take the bribe, and you accepted it.

Whose fault is it that you took the bribe? It’s not the FBI. It’s not the evil white man. The onus falls on you Chuckie boy. The FBI set you up, and you took the bribe. YOU TOOK THE BRIBE.

You’re just upset you got caught.

Chuck Turner Arrested In Connection With Wilkerson Bribery Case

The dominos keep falling… Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner is next.

In a second alleged bribery bombshell, City Councilor Chuck Turner was arrested this morning at City Hall on federal charges he took a $1,000 cash bribe to help secure a liquor license for a Roxbury nightclub, according to a federal affidavit.

The arrest is in connection with the expanding federal case against disgraced state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who was indicted this week on charges that she accepted $23,500 in cash bribes to help the Dejavu club secure the same liquor license, which was to be located in Turner and Wilkerson’s districts.

Turner is scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon on one count of attempted extortion and two counts of making false statements.

We all know Chuck Turner has a history of false statements.

According to an affidavit in Worcester Federal Court, Turner was snared in the same FBI undercover sting operation that brought down Wilkerson and the illegal bribe was caught on tape.

During an August 2007 meeting at Turner’s Roxbury district office, a witness cooperating with the FBI in the sting who was pushing for Turner’s help to secure the Dejavu license, allegedly handed Turner $1,000 in cash in exchange for Turner’s support and back-room dealing at City Hall.

“The (witness) handed Turner $1,000 in cash and said, “you take the wife to dinner and … have some fun,” according to the 12-page affidavit.

Turner accepted the bribe, “while smiling and nodding his head and responded, “okay,” according to the affidavit. The entire transaction was videotaped and caught on audio, according to the affidavit.

At the time, Turner was working to set up a city council hearing on the Dejavu liquor license. Turner scheduled the hearing, but later canceled it because, through Wilkerson’s efforts, Dejavu had received its liquor license, according to the affidavit.

Despite the investigation into Wilkerson, Turner said he was standing behind her. We can see why… but I think he’ll be standing next to her in court now.

Shall we start taking bets on who will be the next to fall victim in this case?

Or better yet, how long before Turner alleges racism?

No Rent-a-Pet Here in the Commonwealth

As expected, you will not see pet rentals coming to Boston.

The Legislature has voted to make pet rentals illegal in Massachusetts.

The House voted 156-0 today to outlaw the practice. The Senate later followed suit with a voice vote.

Members argue that letting people house pets for short periods of time would amount to cruelty to animals, in part by confusing them about their owner. The Boston City Council passed its own ban after a pet rental company wanted to locate there.

The bill now moves to the desk of Gov. Deval Patrick. He has 10 days to decide whether to sign, veto or let the bill become law without action.

As I said a month ago, I fail to see how this can be deemed “cruelty to animals” based on confusing them about their owner, but shuttle children off to day care day in and day out, or shared custody situations between divorced parents is not cruel.

Once again, we seem to be caring more about the animals than people, and let’s face it, that’s pretty topsy-turvy. Sorry all you animal rights activisits, but people come first, not animals.

If what’s good enough for people isn’t good enough for animals, then where does it end?

Rent-a-Pet Coming To Boston?

Pet rentals in Boston? Boston City Council seems think the idea isn’t so hot.

Loaner Labs and borrowed beagles will be banned in Boston if the City Council chews to pieces the latest time-saving trend: dog rentals.

A proposed prohibition on cash-and-carry canine membership clubs like FlexPetz – an international agency that purports to be sniffing out locations in Boston – will be taken up at City Hall today at 1 p.m. by the council’s Committee on Government Operations.

“To rent a dog just seems wrong. It seems very self-indulgent,” said Councilor Michael Ross, the committee’s chairman. “I’m not for legislating morality, but it just seems like cruel and unusual treatment of a poor, defenseless animal.”

It does seem a little bizarre, and I can certainly envision animal rights activists having a fit over this.

FlexPetz – currently in New York, Los Angeles and London – pairs dog lovers whose lifestyle restrictions have them on a short leash with rescued and “rehomed” pooches for “Daily Doggy Time.”

To join, FlexPetz charges a $100 monthly membership fee. Members agree to purchase a minimum four $45 rentals per month. Their in-home training costs $150, on top of a $99 annual fee.

Jennifer Wooliscroft, spokeswoman for the Animal Rescue League of Boston, said, “We are against (renting dogs). It treats a living being as a commodity.”

Pet owners in town agree.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s weird,” said Rana Juster, 26, of Cambridge, playing fetch with her cockapoo Burger.

“It’s kind of crazy,” said Terry Kelly, 40, of Boston, strolling with Tek, a golden retriever-poodle mix. “I can see some guy picking up a pup to go out and pick up girls.”

Natalie Carpenter, 30, of Watertown said her big, beautiful chocolate lab Bella needs the kind of routine only a permanent, loving home can provide.

“She’s my life,” Carpenter said. “I bring her everywhere with me.”

Trish Kapur, 30, of Boston, enjoying a day of bonding with her cairn terrier Kona Bear, said, “I’d be interested in seeing how they take care of the dogs when they’re not being rented. Just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean people are doing the right thing.”

I can certainly see their point, and my gut reaction is that the idea is wrong. However, if the animals are properly cared for while not being “rented” and the “renters” take good care of them, how is that different than the millions of parents in this country and around the world that shell out top dollar so that a stranger can raise their children, or so they dump their human commodities in day care.

Let’s face it, in this day and age, paying someone else to take care of your child is routine. If these pet rental agencies are regulated in some fashion, who’s getting hurt here? Sure, there may be guys who want to rent a dog with the hopes of picking up women, but as long as the animal is cared for, where is the harm? As one of the Boston pet owners in the article said,  some dogs may require a “routine” that only a permanent home can provide. If this is true for animals, how come we think nothing of dropping off our (human) children during their most impressionable years to spend hours at a day care facility with someone who doesn’t them? Or how about shared custody situations with divorced parents and their children? That’s not really a permanent home. We know that has an effect on children, but we think nothing of it. And the big worry here is that a few dogs may get a little confused?

If these rent-a-pet companies treat their animals in a loving and caring manner between rentals, and the people who rent the animals are “screened” in some fashion, why not let these companies set up shop in Boston to see if there is a market for this kind of service, and see how it goes?

In this case, as long as the company cares for the animals and they screen their clients, I say let the market decide, not Boston City Council.