Special City Council Meeting 09-29-25

September 29, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of the Everett City Council

Meeting Date: October 2, 2023 Governing Body: Everett City Council Type of Meeting: Special Meeting Attendees:

  • Councilor Guerline Alcy Jabouin
  • Councilor Anthony DiPierro
  • Councilor Holly Garcia
  • Councilor John Hanlon
  • Councilor Michael Marchese
  • Councilor Peter Pietrantonio
  • Councilor Katy Rogers
  • Councilor Stephanie Smith
  • Councilor Robert Van Campen
  • President Stephanie Martins
  • Legislative Aid Mangan (Clerk)
  • Attorney Petrini
  • Kevin Flaherty (MDD Forensic Accountants)

Absent:

  • Councilor Wayne Matewsky (notified of a previous family commitment)

Executive Summary

The Everett City Council convened a special meeting to review the findings of a forensic audit conducted by MDD Forensic Accountants regarding payments made to Mayor Carlo DeMaria. The audit, initiated in response to a Massachusetts Inspector General report, identified $260,964 in non-salary payments to the Mayor, including $180,000 in longevity bonuses deemed overpayments by the OIG, and an additional $31,664 in cost-of-living adjustments. Key findings included inconsistencies in accounting for longevity payments, the use of manual checks for certain payments, and the recording of some payments to accounts outside the Mayor's office. Public participation overwhelmingly expressed concerns about transparency, accountability, and the misuse of taxpayer funds. The Council voted to refer the audit findings to various state agencies, request supplemental appropriations for legal intervention in the Mayor's lawsuit against the OIG, and fund an internal controls audit of the finance department.

Public Participation

A motion was made and seconded to open public participation. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

Eight individuals signed up to speak, each allotted two minutes.

  • Stephanie Hanlon (Everett Street): Summarized the Massachusetts Inspector General's report from February, which found the Mayor was overpaid $180,000 in longevity bonuses. She highlighted that the longevity ordinance allows a one-time $10,000 bonus per full term, but the Mayor's office issued annual $40,000 payments between 2018 and 2021. Ms. Hanlon stated that payments were concealed by moving them to a human resources line item. She emphasized the OIG's statutory authority and the requirement for state agencies to seek repayment of overpayments to elected officials. Ms. Hanlon concluded, "The lack of transparency in this matter undermines public trust and raises serious concerns about the misuse of taxpayer funds."

  • Tony Raymond (Ward 3): Accused the Mayor of "criminal behavior" and urged him to "be accountable. Pay it back." He alleged the Mayor's CFO, Eric Demas, hid the money. Mr. Raymond criticized the Mayor's $225,000 salary and the $180,000 in bonuses, especially given residents' struggles with living costs.

  • Peggy Serino (Everett, MA): Criticized the Mayor's alleged mismanagement, stating it always benefits him. She mentioned the Mayor's legal bills, paid by taxpayers, and the $180,000 taken from residents. Ms. Serino highlighted the Mayor's $236,250 annual salary, making him the highest-paid mayor in Massachusetts for one of the smallest cities. She questioned the lack of renegotiation of the casino host agreement and the source of funds for recent city improvements.

  • Paula Stariti (100 Cleveland Ave): Thanked the City Council for pursuing the $180,000 repayment. She emphasized the significance of this amount to Everett residents, particularly the 15% living below the poverty line and struggling seniors. Ms. Stariti quoted former US Attorney Joshua Levy on the duty of elected officials to serve with integrity and not abuse positions of trust for personal gain. She questioned why the Attorney General and federal authorities were not more involved and suggested the auditor identify other mismanaged funds, including legal defense costs and insurance contracts.

  • Mary Fortin (Ward 4): As a Vietnam veteran, expressed disappointment that constituents are being "silenced" in a city she was once proud of.

  • Bill Thompson (Sacred Plaza, Ward 6): Thanked the media for attending and emphasized the need for transparency regarding city finances. He questioned the settlement amount for former Superintendent Priya Talwar and the lack of the Mayor's presence to answer questions. Mr. Thompson stated, "The transparency is not good."

  • Cynthia Salazar (Ward 4): Reiterated previous speakers' points, emphasizing that a city the size of Everett should not have a mayor paid more than Boston's mayor. She questioned the $180,000 owed to the city and who else might be involved. Ms. Salazar concluded, "We just need to do better."

A motion was made and seconded to close public participation. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

Resolution: Forensic Audit Presentation

Item Number One: A resolution offered by President Martins that the forensic auditor from MDD present the current findings of the audit in compliance with the Office of the Inspector General's recommendation.

A motion was made and seconded to invite Attorney Petrini and the outside auditor to present. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

Attorney Petrini's Overview: Attorney Petrini provided a brief overview of the past seven months, referencing the Massachusetts Office of Inspector General's (OIG) 16-page report issued on February 27, 2023.

  • The OIG concluded $180,000 in overpayments to the Mayor under the longevity ordinance.
  • The OIG found the Mayor and administration concealed these payments.
  • An additional $30,000 was improperly paid before the ordinance was enacted.
  • An unauthorized payment of $1,700 was improperly advanced.
  • Possible ethics violations occurred.
  • Attorney Petrini outlined seven recommendations from the OIG report (pages 13-14) and the Council's actions to address them:
    1. Audit of payments to Mayor DeMaria (FY2016-present): MDD Forensic Accountants retained.
    2. Recover $180,000 in longevity payments: Council voted on March 4 to demand repayment; Mayor has refused.
    3. Provide information to State Ethics Commission: Complaint filed on March 26; supplemental information provided on May 5.
    4. Eliminate longevity payments to elected officials: Ordinance enacted on March 24.
    5. Require training on fiduciary obligations: Training being organized with the Inspector General.
    6. Strengthen controls in finance department: Council requested Mayor implement safeguards on March 4.
    7. Ensure segregation of duties (CFO and Auditor): Mayor has separated positions, but the Auditor remains an employee of the CFO's office, which may not align with the intent of separation.
  • Chronology of Council Actions:
    • March 3: Council appropriated $150,000 for audit and legal services.
    • March 4: Council voted to demand repayment of $180,000 from the Mayor.
    • March 4: Council requested Mayor implement financial safeguards and separate CFO/Auditor positions.
    • March 24: Council agreed to take training and requested Mayor and staff do the same.
    • March 24: Council enacted an ordinance to end longevity payments to all elected officials.
    • March 25: Council submitted requests for information to the Mayor and staff for the independent auditor.
    • March 26: Council filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission regarding conflict of interest issues and the Mayor's use of city funds for legal and PR firms. Investigation is ongoing.
    • March 28: Council wrote to the Inspector General for an update and further assistance, and sent letters to the Massachusetts Attorney General, District Attorney, and US Attorney requesting action.
    • Mid-April: MDD Forensic Accountants (Kevin Flaherty) retained.
    • May 5: Supplemental information provided to the State Ethics Commission.
    • May 15: Further information provided to the Inspector General.
    • End of May: Council sought funding for legal action to recover funds, but the budget item was not included in the FY26 budget by the Mayor.
    • End of September: Mayor DeMaria filed a lawsuit against the Inspector General, challenging the OIG's findings and authority.

MDD Forensic Accountants Presentation (Kevin Flaherty): Mr. Flaherty presented the audit findings.

  • Engagement Timeline:

    • April 16: Engagement letter executed.
    • April 28: Request for information sent to the city.
    • May 9: Initial information received from the city.
    • May 21: Request for missing information sent and quickly received.
    • May 21 - August 11: Review conducted.
    • August 11: Preliminary findings provided to the city for response.
    • September 9: Follow-up sent to the city.
    • September 22: Response received from the city.

  • Scope 1: Payroll Review (Mayor DeMaria):

    • Audited W-2s and payroll registers to confirm completeness and classification of wages (salary, stipend, longevity, other).
    • Confirmed all W-2 wages were recorded in the accounting system, though in various accounts.
    • Summary of Non-Salary Payments: Identified $260,964 in unique non-salary payments to Mayor DeMaria.
      • August 25, 2016: $7,600 (Longevity, recorded as longevity).
      • October 2016: $30,000 (Longevity, recorded as longevity).
      • 2017: $30,000 (Longevity, recorded as longevity).
      • January 2018: $40,000 (Longevity, originally recorded as longevity, then moved to salaries and wages).
      • 2019: $40,000 (Longevity, recorded as salaries and wages).
      • January 9, 2020: $40,000 (Longevity, recorded as salaries).
      • Manual Checks (2021): Two $20,000 payments (Longevity, recorded to employee buyback account 152-5151, not the Mayor's account 121).
      • April 9, 2021: Another manual check, similar transaction.
      • $1,700: Classified as longevity, coded as auto allowance (clerical error).
      • November 2023: $31,664 (Supplemental earnings, explained as accumulated cost of living increases).
    • Councilor Marchese noted that the $30,000 payment in October 2016 and another $30,000 in January 2017 appeared to be double payments for longevity, questioning the timing relative to term completion.

  • Scope 2: Disbursement Analysis (Mayor's Account):

    • Reviewed all disbursements from the Mayor's account to identify any additional payments to Mayor DeMaria outside payroll and to provide a list of large vendor payments.
    • Confirmed no additional direct payments to Mayor DeMaria outside of payroll.
    • Presented a summary of large disbursements to the Council for review.

  • Scope 3: Credit Cards:

    • Reviewed details for approximately eight city credit cards.
    • Noted Mayor DeMaria's credit card had substantial charges of $25,000 in 2023, compared to prior years.
    • Detailed schedules of all credit card charges were provided separately.

  • Scope 4: Expense Reports:

    • Reviewed expense reports for Mayor DeMaria, Ms. Latanzi, and Ms. DiMaria.
    • Amounts were relatively small. Receipts were available for the past four to five years.
    • Councilor Pietrantonio questioned why Ms. Latanzi's expense report was specifically reviewed; Mr. Flaherty stated it was requested due to her business relationship with the Mayor.

  • City's Responses to Inquiries (Verbatim):

    • Why was $40,000 payment transferred from longevity account 121 to salary account 121 (January 2018)?
      • Response: The amount budgeted for longevity in FY2018 was $30,000. After Mayor DeMaria's re-election in November 2017, he was owed $40,000. The payment was initially charged to longevity, but then transferred to the salaries line item because the amount owed was greater than budgeted for longevity, allowing the Mayor's office budget to remain balanced.
    • Why were two $20,000 manual checks issued to Mayor DeMaria, labeled longevity, but recorded to employee buyback account 152-5151?
      • Response: The manual checks were for longevity. The payroll system at the time lacked the capacity to adjust withholdings for supplemental longevity payments, so the manual check process was used to calculate correct withholding amounts. The payments were recorded in the employee buyback account, from which other large non-salary compensation payments (e.g., collective bargaining agreements) were made, as there was no budgeted amount in the Mayor's office for his longevity payments.
      • Councilor Pietrantonio questioned why the Mayor's longevity payments required a different withholding process than other city employees.
    • Why was $1,700 longevity payment recorded as auto allowance (July 2, 2022)?
      • Response: This was the amount owed under the revised longevity ordinance. It was erroneously coded as an auto allowance due to a clerical error, but the amount was correct.
    • Why did Mayor DeMaria receive $31,664 coded as SUP (November 16, 2023)?
      • Response: SUP denotes compensation owed to the Mayor for prior cost of living adjustments (COLA) that had not been paid at the time he was allowed to collect them.
      • Councilor Pietrantonio questioned why the Mayor's COLA was paid as a lump sum rather than yearly like other employees.
    • Why are payments coded as stipends in the payroll register?
      • Response: Stipend payments to the Mayor are for months budgeted for car allowance.

  • Questions from Councilors to Mr. Flaherty:

    • Councilor Rogers: Asked what action the Council is expected to take. (Answered by President Martins and Attorney Petrini: refer information to OIG and State Ethics Commission, refer questions to administration).
    • Councilor Van Campen: Asked about the $30,000 payment made before the ordinance was enacted. Mr. Flaherty stated he only summarized accounting records, not ordinance compliance. Asked about best practices; Mr. Flaherty emphasized the need for "transparency and checks and balances."
    • Councilor Marchese: Asked if Mr. Flaherty had ever seen such accounting practices. Mr. Flaherty stated he had seen a lot in 35 years, and "this is different."
    • Councilor Pietrantonio: Questioned why the annual city audit did not catch these issues. Mr. Flaherty explained that audits are designed to ensure material misstatements in financial statements, not to catch granular details like these.
    • Councilor Pietrantonio: Asked about MDD's background. Mr. Flaherty stated MDD has been in business since the late 1970s, and he has been practicing since 1988, with familiarity in municipal audits. He noted his report included the $30,000 COLA adjustment, which he believed the OIG report did not.

A motion was made and seconded to excuse Mr. Flaherty. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

Questions from Councilors to Attorney Petrini:

  • Councilor Van Campen: Asked about the Mayor's lawsuit against the Inspector General and the Council's involvement.
    • Attorney Petrini suggested the Council could request its attorney to intervene in the lawsuit to represent the city's interests, as the court will interpret a city ordinance. He noted funding would be an issue.
    • Attorney Petrini stated the lawsuit process could take two to three years.
  • Councilor Rogers: Asked about procuring funding when the Mayor must approve it. Also asked about any federal investigation mentioned in the Boston Globe.
    • Attorney Petrini stated he is not aware of a federal report. He confirmed the State Ethics Commission investigation is ongoing, but other law enforcement agencies do not typically provide updates until a finding or indictment.
  • Councilor Garcia: Asked for suggestions to expedite the process.
    • Attorney Petrini stated it is challenging to make courts move faster, but having counsel at the table could advocate for quicker resolution, provided funding is available.
  • Councilor Pietrantonio: Asked if investigations are still ongoing.
    • Attorney Petrini confirmed the State Ethics Commission investigation is "under review." He has not heard back from other agencies but stated this does not mean investigations are not ongoing.

A motion was made and seconded to excuse all guests. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

Councilor Comments and Motions:

  • Councilor Smith:

    • Stated the audit shows a need for an internal controls audit due to "subpar controls," clerical errors, and credit card usage.
    • Noted the city has eight credit cards, with significant charges by individuals (e.g., Ms. Ford $60,000 in a year, Ms. Jenkins $130,000 in a year).
    • Highlighted a significant increase in travel expenses post-COVID (from $17,000 to $44,000 annually).
    • Questions for Administration:
      • Details on the $31,664 COLA payment (when, why, how much per year).
      • Questioned why the Mayor's COLA is tied to the inflation index while others receive 2-3% at administration's discretion.
      • Asked if payroll systems switched in 2021, why two longevity checks were issued months apart, and if other employees' longevity payments were incorrect due to withholding issues.
      • Requested backup for Mayor DeMaria's $25,000 credit card expenses and if he is also reimbursed for travel.
    • Motion: To request a supplemental appropriation from the Mayor to fund an internal controls audit of the finance department.
      • Seconded.
      • Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

  • Councilor Van Campen:

    • Expressed concern that the system is "broken" due to the highlighted transactions.
    • Questions for Administration:
      • How was $30,000 paid before an ordinance or approval was in place? (Termed "misappropriation").
      • Why were longevity payments a "moving target" and "shielded" from public view (e.g., recorded as salaries, employee buyback)?
      • How was $31,664 paid for COLA without clear calculation?
    • Motion: To request the President to seek a supplemental appropriation from the Mayor to allow the City Council to intervene in the Mayor's lawsuit against the Inspector General, protecting the city's interests.
      • Seconded.
      • Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

  • Councilor Marchese:

    • Reiterated concern about the $30,000 payment before approval and another $30,000 shortly after, totaling $60,000.

  • President Martins:

    • Questioned the Mayor's stay at the St. Regis at $1,497 per night, contrasting it with the government rate required for Councilors.
    • Asked if funds can be moved between accounts without Council approval.

  • Councilor Alcy Jabouin:

    • Thanked the auditor for the report, stating it was "money well spent."
    • Questioned why state authorities have not acted more decisively, stating, "The proof is as clear as daylight. Why was this task left to us, the councilors, to deal with when other cities are being dealt with accordingly?"
    • Noted the Mayor gave himself a large COLA while declining a $10 raise for a department, cutting it to $5.
    • Expressed concern that the total identified overpayment is $261,000 instead of $180,000, indicating "deeper trouble."

  • Councilor Pietrantonio:

    • Disagreed that the system is broken, stating it was "fixed" like a "fixed football game."
    • Emphasized that the $260,000 came from taxpayers, stating, "all them hot dogs and hamburgers you ate at all the parks, you paid for them."
    • Urged residents to "open your eyes."
    • Motion: To add a resolution to the next agenda requesting that the city stop using all eight city credit cards.
      • Seconded.
      • Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

  • Councilor Smith:

    • Motion: To refer the audit package, with a cover sheet, to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), State Ethics Commission, U.S. Attorney General for Corruption, State Attorney General, State Senator, Representative McGonigal, Representative Garcia, and Representative Ryan.
      • Seconded.
      • Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Vote: All in favor. (Ayes: Unanimous)

The meeting was adjourned.

Last updated: Nov 10, 2025

Back to Meetings