Political Theater Overshadows Facts in City Council’s Targeting of Mayor DeMaria

By James Mitchell

Is Everett’s financial system broken—or is it being deliberately misrepresented to serve a political agenda? That was the unspoken question at a special City Council meeting on Monday, September 29, where a single item—Mayor Carlo DeMaria’s compensation—dominated the agenda. What unfolded, however, appeared less like a legitimate inquiry and more like a coordinated political attack, as several councillors relied on incomplete data and speculative claims to cast doubt on the Mayor’s integrity.

The City Council heard from MDD Forensic Accountants regarding ongoing investigations by the Inspector General’s Office and state Ethics Commission, as well as a lawsuit involving the Mayor’s longevity pay—allegedly totaling $180,000 since 2016. However, new figures presented placed the total closer to $260,964—though MDD’s own representative Kevin Flaherty admitted, “We haven’t determined what’s appropriate and what isn’t.” Despite that key disclaimer, several councillors treated the information as damning evidence, rushing to judgment without the necessary context or understanding of the city’s payroll system.

Councillor-at-Large Stephanie Smith zeroed in on account transfers, suggesting wrongdoing because funds were shifted from longevity to salary accounts in 2018. However, this change was made specifically to ensure proper federal and state tax withholdings—a routine administrative adjustment, according to the Mayor’s Office. No additional money was paid to the Mayor, nor was any rule violated. Yet, Ward 6 Councillor Peter Pietrantonio dismissed this explanation, asking sarcastically, “He’s the only one whose taxes couldn’t be adjusted?”—ignoring that the system used at the time had known limitations and required flexibility.

Smith further criticized the Mayor for receiving Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) tied to inflation, despite this being clearly stipulated in his employment terms. Her rhetorical line, “Why does the highest person in Everett government get more than anyone else when the cost of living is the same for everyone?”, disregarded the fact that senior executive compensation often includes such adjustments, especially for elected officials with complex responsibilities.

Councillor-at-Large Guerline Alcy Jabouin’s flippant reply—”I guess COLAs only apply to the Mayor”—only highlighted the performative tone of the meeting.

The Mayor’s 2023 COLA payment of $31,664 was criticized for being paid as a lump sum. But this was only to correct prior underpayments—a fact conveniently omitted from several councillors’ remarks. Meanwhile, inflated concerns over credit card expenses ignored that the Mayor’s prior average usage was modest ($2,000–$4,000 per year), with the $25,000 figure in Fiscal 2023 lacking proper context or a finding of inappropriateness. Even Flaherty stated plainly: “I’m not here to opine on the appropriateness of the charges.”

In an apparent attempt to link unrelated individuals to wrongdoing, some councillors also raised concerns about the Mayor’s executive assistant, Dolores Lattanzi—despite MDD concluding that her expenses were “all very small” and showed no red flags. The motivation for targeting her, a City of Everett employee who wasn’t mentioned in the original Inspector General’s report, suggests the City Council’s actions were politically motivated.

That suspicion was confirmed when Councillor Smith called for a resolution to send information to state and federal Attorneys General and to pursue internal audits—moves approved by unanimous voice vote, despite no conclusive evidence of corruption. Ward 5 Councillor and mayoral challenger Robert Van Campen went further, calling past payments “misappropriations” and pushing for the City Council to retain its own legal counsel—again, based on recommendations from outside Attorney Chris Petrini, whose involvement raises further questions about neutrality.

Councillor-at-Large Michael Marchese provided a rare moment of clarity, stating, “This wasn’t written by the Mayor… someone else should be held responsible.” Yet, this insight was largely ignored in the rush to turn the meeting into a referendum on the Mayor’s ethics.

In his post-meeting statement, Mayor DeMaria defended his administration’s conduct:

  “From the beginning my administration has been fully cooperative… We have furnished all the documentation requested; nothing was shielded or concealed.”

He went on to condemn the presentation as politically charged and lacking in objectivity:

  “What was presented last night was not an impartial audit. It was a PowerPoint presentation that glossed over critical supporting facts and opened the door for misleading statements by Councillors… the auditor was specifically asked to target a municipal employee… That request underscores the political and personal motivations behind the process.”

Rather than focusing on real issues facing Everett residents, the City Council appears more interested in weaponizing process flaws to discredit a sitting Mayor—despite a lack of any definitive finding of wrongdoing. In doing so, they not only risk damaging the reputation of public servants without cause but also undermine public trust in the very institutions they claim to protect.