City Council votes to spend money on department audits, eliminate longevity pay

By Neil Zolot

In a meeting that lasted nearly five hours, including an Executive Session lasting over an hour, the City Council discussed strategy for litigation and voted to hire an independent auditor to investigate the payment of $180,000 to Mayor Carlo DeMaria in longevity pay since 2016 on Monday, March 24. They also voted to eliminate longevity pay for elected officials. In the Executive Session with their Framingham-based attorney, Christopher Petrini, the members discussed litigation strategy and privileged written legal advice regarding longevity payments to the Mayor.

The hiring of an auditor follows a recommendation from the state Inspector General’s report of February 27. The proposal was passed 10-0 with no discussion. Every resolution was sponsored by all the members, except Ward 3 Councillor Anthony DiPierro, who recused himself from the proceedings because he is a relative of the Mayor. The cost is undetermined but funds were authorized by the Mayor in accordance with regulations, as all appropriations must originate from his office.

This audit is not to be confused with a request by the City Council to the State Auditor’s Office to conduct an audit of city departments at a cost of $10,000 per department. City Clerk Sergio Cornelio reported the State Auditor has asked the City Council to refine its request as to the subject of an audit in each department. “They just don’t come in and look around,” he said. “You have to tell them what it is you want looked at.”

He also said that while State Auditor Dina DiZoglio usually audits state offices, it is not that unusual they’re asked to audit municipal offices. Municipalities across the country normally have outside law firms on the payroll when litigation warrants it for internal lawsuits.

Receiving unanimous approval was a resolution asking “[t]hat the DeMaria Administration immediately cease and desist in its use of public funds in challenging the findings and recommendations issued by the Office of the lnspector General dated February 27, 2025, that it not use public funds to compensate attorneys for work performed on February 27, 2025 and thereafter to challenge the findings and recommendations issued by the Office of the lnspector General dated February 27, 2025, and provide written confirmation of the same within seven (7) days.”

That resolution is concerning given that there was no due process by the Inspector General towards the Mayor’s Office, which obviously questions the integrity of the Inspector General’s report.

Petrini was called to explain the resolution and his recommendation for approval, making reference to the appearance of attorneys Young Paik from Paik Deal, who is representing the Mayor, and John Pappalardo of Greenburg Traurig, who is representing the Administration, at the March 4 City Council meeting and accusations DeMaria violated conflict-of-interest regulations by being involved in drafting the ordinance that gave him the longevity pay. In his opinion, Petrini stated, “The Public Purpose Doctrine says public funds should be used to advance the interest of the public, not a private person’s interests.”

“The Mayor’s interests have become adverse to those of the City. It became obvious March 4 when the Mayor had attorneys working for his personal interest, not that of the City. The Inspector General’s report was a sea-change. After that it was no longer proper to use City funds for the Mayor’s opposition to the report. I think the Council hopes the Mayor will do the right thing. If he uses his own money to pay for legal fees, that’s his choice but unless the Mayor voluntarily does or some other action is taken through the State Ethics Commission or a court order, the matter is still open.”

Petrini also called the Inspector General “an independent state agency with no particular bias or axe to grind in Everett or any other community.”

However, documents obtained appear to show an apparent political attack with possible revenge motives. It has been learned that Councillor Michael Marchese, in a letter to the Inspector General, drafted by City Clerk Sergio Cornelio in December 2021, was drafted only weeks after the defaming article regarding the Corey Street transaction between Cornelio and the Mayor was published in the Everett Leader Herald citing an interview with Cornelio.  A lawsuit was filed in September of 2021 including Cornelio only weeks before the IG submission was created.

The timing of the filing by the pair being Cornelio and Marchese, who sold two Everett properties (reportedly under market price) to Cornelio, makes the potential for the initiation of the investigation purely political, if not worse. It also must be noted the Cornelio was in charge of elections at the time of the occurrence. Cornelio countersued the Mayor but both parties dropped their respective suits prior to the mayor’s $1.1 million settlement award.

But Paik and Pappalardo have argued the investigation had no mechanism for the Mayor or members of the Administration to rebut allegations, cross-examine witnesses, present a case or appeal the findings.

Also approved was a resolution for the Councillors, Mayor DeMaria and members of his finance team to take specialized training as to their respective fiduciary duties in the area of municipal finance. “This was based on a recommendation from the Inspector General,” City Council president Stephanie Martins said.

In housekeeping measures, the City Council also approved a number of resolutions to transmit the actions of the Council to the Mayor, Chief Financial Officer Eric Demas and Budget Director Margaret Micherda.

The Council is still seeking information and invoices as to how Paik, Pappalardo and other outside law firms are being paid and what they’re working on. Smith said the City received a $14,000 invoice from Paik Deal, but it was “heavily redacted,” and none from Greenburg Traurig. “It’s important we know how much is being spent by subject, not just by firm,” she feels.