Midland parents have had enough of John Monfredo

Plus, did Maureen Binienda break the law last night?

Hello everyone! Coming at you a few days ahead of regular schedule, as I’m heading up to NH this weekend for some quality family time. 

“Hectic” and “heavy” are the choice words for the past week in Worcester news. There’s a lot of stuff that needs covering. There’s six stories in this post if I’m counting correctly: A tragedy, Binienda, Monfredo, the Sleep Out, safe injection sites, and the Street Cop training program. Woof!

Please consider joining the 700+ people who voluntarily support the work of this outlet! None of this would exist without them! 

Tips are also nice!

And so are merch orders!

---

Rest in Peace, Zella and Chasity

On Tuesday, a woman and her daughter were gunned down in broad daylight while in their car on a quiet residential street. Some 30 rounds were fired into the car. Chasity Nunez and her 11-year-old daughter Zella died a short time later. Nunez leaves behind another, two-year-old daughter. The alleged killers have been arraigned, and the crime appears tied to a long-running feud. 

Don’t do shit like this...

Wayne Griffin wins yet another round of “who’s the worst.”

---

Did Maureen Binienda break the law last night?

Maybe! Certainly a question that deserves an answer. 

Without disclosing that her daughter works as a teacher in the district’s alternative school program, Binienda asked an awful lot of pointed questions about decisions made in regard to said program. She called for more financial investment in it! Even veered into conspiratorial territory, taking to task the decision to switch from 45-minute classes to two-hour classes at the Gerald Creamer Center evening program. 

“I just think we need to look at the two-hour classes. And I was actually told, by somebody, that it was financial, because of the teacher contract and the hourly rate... it would be very expensive for the district to have it run five days a week, or four days a week,” she said. “And that was why that change was made. I hope that’s not true. I think it needs to be looked at again.”

What she didn’t say was that her daughter, Mairecait Binienda, teaches at the Gerald Creamer Center evening program! I confirmed that this morning. When Binienda says she was told “by somebody” that the shift to two-hour classes was a cost-saving move related to teacher pay, it’s not unreasonable to think that “somebody” is her daughter. Of course she doesn’t say so. 

Binienda then expressed the opinion that there's a shortage of “staff in some areas” at the school. 

“I think we should address that if indeed we want to have all kids be successful. We have an obligation to make sure it’s staffed correctly.”

When you’re a public official, and you push for a specific budget increase that would directly benefit a specific blood relative? And you don’t even disclose the relationship? There’s a law for that! 

Here’s the relevant section of the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees.

An example they provide is hilariously on the nose. 

This example would read: A school committee member lobbies for a larger budget allocation to the program where her daughter works.

Seems pretty clear to me! Certainly, at least, something the State Ethics Commission would find interesting. Back 1984, the Ethics Commission ruled that...

School committee members may not participate in any way in the formulation, adoption or revision of any aspect of the budget or a collective bargaining strategy or position which may relate to the wages, hours or conditions of employment of any member of his or her immediate family employed by the school department.

Again, very on the nose. So it’s not even that Binienda didn’t disclose the relationship that’s the issue, if I’m reading this correctly. She wasn’t allowed to go there at all. In fact it sort of seems like so long as her daughter works in the public schools, she really can’t “participate” in anything having to do with the budget or collective bargaining. Last night, we saw her do the opposite, and flagrantly. 

Although it’s unlikely she’ll face any consequences at all, it’s worth noting the state ethics commission is capable of issuing fines up to $10,000 for violating the conflict of interest law. 

Instead of going down the whole “conflict of interest law” route, Superintendent Rachel Monárrez asked Binienda a “clarifying question” which was perhaps the finest targeted strike I’ve ever seen a public official pull off: 

“Are you saying that the students who attend these evening classes are not capable of attending a two-hour class?”

Binienda responded in stammering fashion: “Through the chair, I’m saying it’s very difficult for those students. It’s very difficult for not-GCC (Gerald Creamer Center) students to do two-hour classes. We don’t... The only two-hour classes we offer in this district are for AP students. We do not... And maybe some of the Voke students. But we don’t offer two-hour courses.”

Translation: “Yes, that’s what I was saying.”

Monárrez hit back: “I’m not sure why we would think that a child who attends an alternative setting could not benefit from a two-hour setting. So I’m not quite sure what educational research we’re using to determine that.”

Dang, she rules. What a contrast in competence.

You can watch the whole moment below. It’s pretty great. 

---

“We Have Received Legitimate Concerns”

Oh fun! A reading event at Midland Street School last Friday! Look at this nice collage they posted about it...

Wait a second... Computer. Enhance.

Oh... that’s John Monfredo, the credibly accused pedophile... reading to children. That’s not good! Not at all! 

I’m not the only one who thinks so. A lot of people in the community were, understandably, quite upset by this. My phone was ringing off the hook and my various inboxes and group chats were lighting up Tuesday and Wednesday with a lot of people saying WTF is all this?

One of those people was Chris Doyle, a grandfather of two children at Midland Street School.

“It just seemed like the worst decision they could make to bring this guy into the schools,” he said. “It just struck me as wrong.”

The administration was similarly awash with calls, apparently. Midland Street School Principal Christina Guertin sent an email to parents at 1:45 p.m. Wednesday with the subject line “Information about Community reader day.” It read:

Dear Midland Street School Families,

In the last few days, we have received legitimate concerns from parents about our decision to allow a certain individual to participate in the Read Across America Day event last Friday. The individual was not criminally convicted of wrongdoing, but information that was shared in news reports last fall raised understandable concerns.

First, I would like to apologize for allowing this person to read to our students. It was an error in judgment due to my lack of information. Second, please know that the safety and security of your children is always our top priority. This individual was never alone with any children on Friday, nor were any of our volunteer readers. Volunteers are not allowed to be alone with our students. Employees, including staff from community partner organizations that do regular work with our schools, are all required to undergo criminal background checks.

Today, a meeting was held with members of Worcester Public Schools administration about this incident. WPS and the Worcester School Committee are in the process of updating rules and policies on school volunteers. In the meantime, WPS will send updated guidance to school principals about best practices to ensure the safety of all students. Here at Midland, we will absolutely review the name of every volunteer moving forward with district administration to ensure such an incident does not happen again.

Above all, please know that the Midland Street School is a safe and welcoming environment for all students. Safety will always be our top priority. Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Christina Guerin (sic)

Principal

Midland Street School

Bolded are the key takeaways. 

One, she doesn’t name him, which is irresponsible. Think about being a parent who doesn’t know what she’s talking about and reading that. 

Two, she doesn’t say he won’t be invited back. It might be in the subtext but it is not clearly stated, which is unfortunate. 

Three, she doesn’t say why it wasn’t safe for Monfredo to be there. She merely says he was “never criminal convicted of wrongdoing.” That’s as close as she gets! A classic situation: my T-shirt that says “I’ve never been criminally convicted of wrongdoing” has a lot of people asking questions already answered by my shirt!

And then the “lack of information” line is pretty crazy considering she’s been in the district since 1993 and was at one point Monfredo’s direct underling. In Neal McNamara’s write up on all this in the Patch (worth a read!), he puts Guertin as an assistant principal at the Belmont Street school around the time Monfredo retired as principal there, in 2004. 

Guertin has worked in the district almost her entire career. In 2019, she left for a job in Lunenburg, but by 2020 she was back in Worcester.

“That principal had worked with him before she knew what he was and who he was and still made that decision.... saying that the kids come first there is really not genuine,” said Doyle.

“Though it was certainly loud enough in the fall that anybody should have known who John Monfredo was, what he was accused of, and that he really shouldn’t be around kids going forward.”

(If for some reason you haven’t read it by now... “John Monfredo's "teen-age accuser" takes her power back.” Read now then come back.)

It’s much more likely she didn’t think she’d be called on it, I think. Even a year ago, she’d probably be right.  

Since the story was published last October, Monfredo has been quiet. Making no comment at all in the local press, though given ample opportunity. 

But that doesn’t mean he’s been silent. While declining to talk to reporters, it appears he’s been engaging in a sort of whisper campaign, approaching people abruptly to give them his side of the story. I’ve confirmed at least two recent instances. In separate moments, Monfredo recently approached current school committee member Sue Mailman and former member Jermoh Kamara in public settings—abruptly, they both said, without warning—and gave an extended monologue about his innocence. The substance of both conversations, as relayed, was nearly identical.

In mid-February, Monfredo cornered Mailman in a CVS, she told me over the phone.  

“He comes up to me and says ‘Sue, Sue, I just need to tell you I was never alone with that girl and my family has been through so much,’” said Mailman. She said she waited for him to finish, then “just nodded at him and left.”

Around the same time, there was a ceremony to honor retired clerk Helen Friel, which many WPS officials attended, including Jermoh Kamara and, of course, Monfredo. 

After the event, as the crowd thinned, Kamara said she went to grab her coat and leave when Monfredo suddenly cornered her. “It was so unexpected,” she said. 

“It was like so sudden,” she told me. “It went for a good five to eight minutes. I literally just stood there because I did not expect it. It was at an event with a lot of esteemed people. I was really upset because I couldn’t just burst out because of the environment. The kind of reaction I would have had outside was not the one I was going to give him in that moment.” 

The exchange left her unsettled: “How can a human being come and corner someone at an event like that? It was really unnerving and aggravating.”

If the plan was to prove his innocence, it backfired. 

“It sounded like a guilty person,” she said.  

These exchanges, while certainly uncomfortable for those on the receiving end, aren’t included here as “news,” per se. But taken as character studies, they’re revealing—especially if they’re part of a larger pattern. Rather than enter the arena of public discourse, Monfredo has been going door-to-door, targeting those with influence. A whisper campaign to make sure he doesn’t lose any status in his political world. 

When Heather made her story public, it was an act of astounding bravery. Close as I was to that act, I’ll never truly understand that strength of spirit. She fundamentally challenged the power dynamics that keep so many sexual assault survivors silent and afraid. She forced this man and the political culture around him to look at what they did to her, in stark and detailed terms. The public watched as they pretended not to notice. It was obvious that they were waiting it out, hoping it would go away. All the while, they were whispering, I’m sure.  

This decision to allow Monfredo to read to kids last week suggests there’s truth to my analysis. They thought they’d waited long enough. That it had “blown over.” That Monfredo could return to his place among them, just like he did the first time, back in the 90s. But it didn’t work like that this time! 

This wasn’t a controversy sparked by a news story or a statement from Heather or a tweet. Parents found out Monfredo was at that event, reading to their kids, and they were pissed. They saw Monfredo as a danger to their children. A person who should not be around them. The administration took those concerns seriously. Responded to them. 

That’s a fundamental shift. It would not have happened this way in years past. Monfredo would have been protected, as he’s always been protected. The angry parents would have been maligned, just like Heather was, back when she was an unnamed teen accuser with “issues.”  

This little dust up is evidence of big change. A lot of people read Heather’s story. Objectively. It was “a moment.” But what we’re seeing now, months later, is a glimmer of proof that the story wasn’t just read, it was believed. It meant something. It resonated. It was true. And while Monfredo continues to experience almost no repercussions as a result of the story, nor has anyone else involved, it’s worth laying out this more subtle progress. 

Why is it that Monfredo opted to stay silent in the press, despite ample opportunity to make his case? Why not fire back? They could have gone the character assassination route, picking the story apart and turning it back on us. “Irresponsible journalism” was right there. I expected it. Either that or patronizing sympathy for the “mentally unwell.” 

I didn’t expect the total silence. But it was so total it seemed coordinated. A whisper campaign to ignore it outright. 

My theory is that they see my work as 1:1 to Turtleboy Sports, and approach it with the same “do not humor someone so beneath you” approach. They’re not media savvy enough to see the difference. They can only see the lack of deference they expect from “real” reporters. So they’re blind to the critique. That I’m using the stupid things they do as a vehicle to illustrate an analysis of power, not trying to bully them into a fearful submission as Aidan Kearney did. He wanted these people to be afraid of him. He wants that power over people. I want to write things that are interesting to me, I want to be respected as a craftsman and artist. I am merely using the local political class as a framework to innovate on the form of local news. I don’t consider how a given piece makes them feel. That concern is beneath me. I actively guard myself against it. Covering local government for as long as I have, a certain fundamental game becomes apparent if you care to look. It stretches over all of it, including the local press. A sort of RPG with one skill tree: influence. The power elite assume that reporters play this game, because they almost always do. From those who grovel for an eventual city job to those who trade submission for “access” to the novel intimidation tactics of Kearney, those in power are accustomed to a certain shared desire in the press. I very intentionally reject that game. It’s intellectually liberating to continually learn how it works while refusing to play. I do not think the local political class can really process writing which takes that game to task in a direct way. And so the closest parallel they can grasp is Turtleboy’s crass playing style.  

I’ve never explained all that before, I don’t think. But it’s a good time to do so. The political class around here has a massive blind spot pried open by Heather’s story and made especially clear in this Midland story. 

Treating it like a bad-faith Turtleboy Sports smear, they thought that ignoring it would make it go away. That I was just looking for more negative reactions to prompt more mean posts and suck them into a petty beef that raises my profile at the expense of theirs. So they probably thought they had successfully ignored Heather’s story into oblivion by January or so. Everything could go back to normal again. Monfredo is fine. He can read to the children. 

What they didn’t see, and probably still can’t, was that Heather’s story actually means something. Outside the game. It has its own power. It was not an attack for the sake of attacking. It wasn’t a smear, intended to embarrass. It made me no closer to any person in power. But that’s what they saw! It must have some sort of motive in the game. They responded accordingly, thinking that silence would hurt my play. But it only served to prove my analysis, and it allowed a lot of people who were previously unaware of the game to see it for the first time. 

The radio silence was witnessed by regular people who read the story a different way: a truth that needed telling, and a cause for swift corrective action. And they saw the city’s political class do absolutely nothing. For months. They saw Monfredo’s most powerful ally walk away with a landslide election. They saw him out at the polls holding signs. They saw him in a room full of children, reading to them. 

When you think about how Monfredo was allowed to participate, why no one stopped it from happening, and why a half-hearted apology after the fact didn’t even include his name… you’d do well to consider this game. Monfredo is still a player, no matter how many people outside the game take issue with it.

The parent outrage that made this a story is, to me, a boiling over of frustration with the continued protection of a dangerous man. The power elite as a self-preserving entity, unwilling to let morality disrupt the quiet game of influence for fear they might lose good standing. Monfredo engages in his whisper campaign among fellow players, and all but a small handful of progressives stay silent. 

Chris Doyle, the grandfather I quoted earlier, brought up a good point. 

“Never mind the fact that I don't know how he puts himself in that position, other than being a narcissist or whatever,” said Doyle. 

No one with the power to broach the conversation about how this man should be disqualified from the game is willing to go there. As Mailman and Kamara described, he’s quite sure of his entitlement to keep playing. No one willing to go there has the power to disqualify him. All we can do is get them closer to having to say out loud they won’t kick him out. Make it easy for regular people to see it. 

Heather’s story could well be a sort of inflection point. A revelatory moment that continues to ripple and could one day lead to an undoing of this political class that tolerates a man like Monfredo among them. 

It’s a story that takes the game to task in a fundamental way. Heather was forced to confront the reality that “there were people who mattered and people who didn’t and I was someone who didn’t,” as she said. 

From a craft perspective, I consciously inverted the standard form of writing about sexual abuse. I allowed Heather to be the protagonist. It’s a critique of how we assign survivors a de facto antagonist role usually. It’s the fate of the accused that resolves your average narrative. The “accuser” merely incites the plot. Harvey Weinstein was the main character of the “Me Too” moment. The narrative was structured around what would happen to him. 

The Heather story flips that entirely. Monfredo is not the main character, as he was in every other story ever written about the abuse. I think the political class failed to see that inversion, and continue not to.

There’s a change happening here that is slow and subtle and fascinating. 

---

Sleep Out vs Summit

Tomorrow there will be two extremely related events in the city, though you’re unlikely to see a connection drawn anywhere but here. 

At the DCU Center, there’s a “landlord summit,” sponsored by the city, which offers all manner of advice for how to best pry ~passive income~ from other people’s need for shelter. It’s on the city’s calendar! Free of charge!

Then, in front of city hall, HALO Worcester, an advocacy group for and by the unhoused community, is holding a sleep out protest, starting at 6 p.m.

Give the HALO Worcester Instagram a follow to stay in the loop.

The group said in a statement:

As we gather for our sleep out protest, we stand united in demanding immediate solutions to the urgent crisis of homelessness. It is evident that our city's current efforts fall short of addressing the dire needs of the unhoused community. Instead of providing meaningful support, they resort to criminalizing homelessness and conducting harmful sweeps of encampments - after which individuals have nowhere to go due to lack of shelter space and exacerbating the suffering of those already marginalized.

💯💯Our primary demand is clear: WE CALL FOR AN IMMEDIATE END TO THESE PUNITIVE MEASURES AND URGE THE CITY TO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION TOWARDS ESTABLISHING A SANCTIONED ENCAMPMENT. THIS PROTEST MARKS JUST THE BEGINNING OF OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING OUR ADVOCACY.💯💯

Hell yeah, brother. 

Where the landlord summit is sanctioned by the city and well advertised, the HALO demonstration is more likely to be broken up by the police, just like they did to the Project Priceless (another unhoused self-organizing group) at the RMV a few weeks ago. Remember that?

It’s a shame I’m traveling this weekend because there’s a great bit of gonzo shoeleather reporting to be done between these two events. But family time is family time! Gotta take it when you can.

---

Safe Injection Site, Please

On a different week this would be the lead story, for sure. Gary Rosen—surprisingly but objectively one of the most effective progressive officials in the city—has done it again. 

By a 4-0 Board of Health vote, at Rosen’s insistence, the prospect of Worcester implementing a safe injection site picked up major ground. 

Rosen said, per the Telegram: "The city manager does not oversee the four of us. Tonight we speak up...We have the authority to do this."

City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj initially set the idea in motion a few weeks ago, asking for a report on the feasibility of implementing a version of New York City’s safe injection site program. That’s technically what the Board of Health voted on, and now it goes to the state Department of Public Health for review. Whether the City Council needs to weigh in is as of yet unclear. But in a statement, City Manager Eric Batista made it clear he intends to pump the breaks a bit: 

A spokesman for Batista said the city manager was unavailable for an interview. Batista's office issued a statement that said the city is working on a report requested by City Council and the city will take no action until the state gives further guidance.

“The administration is working on a report for City Council in response to Councilor Haxhiaj’s order relative to the data on Overdose Protection Centers (OPC) and expects it to be transmitted in the near future," the statement reads.

It continued: "No action will be taken on the potential operation of an OPC in the City of Worcester until further guidance is provided by the State of Massachusetts. At such time, further conversations will be had among City officials, City Council, health providers, stakeholders, and the community at large.”

Given what we all know about this city council by now, the less discussion they have, the better off we are. Here’s to hoping Gary Rosen can pull off another bewildering W with this like he did with Fare Free WRTA. 

Gary Rosen, man. What a world. 

---

Street Cop

And yet again on a different week this would be the lead story! The WPD appear to have contracted, then somewhat uncontracted, a police training program that’s so nefarious it’s been banned in nine states. And it’s doing so poorly, in the wake of bad news coverage, that the company has filed for bankruptcy. This was a great pull by the Telegram’s Brad Petrishen: 

The training was originally slated to take place at the training division of the Worcester Police Department at 9-11 Lincoln Square, prior online postings show, but was recently moved. 

Here’s what the OG flyer looked like, lol. 

A WPD spokesman told the Telegram, “Some of the content of their training is antithetical to how we view police training in practice and purpose and was, frankly, offensive to everything WPD stands for.” Was that a view held when the training was initially booked for inside the police department?

Something changed between then and now. The training was held at the Hilton, and officers that wanted to go would have had to pay $225 out of pocket. 

If there wasn’t so much going on this week, I’d have liked to go to that training. Just to see who shows up, and what this Zach Miller guy has to say to “street cops” about “case law.”

The way he puts it in the event description certainly raises an eyebrow:

“How To Get Away With The Stuff That Usually Gets You Sued 101.” Great.

---

Odds and Ends

Well if you made it this far you must like what I’m doing here! Please consider supporting my work :-)

Can’t let you go without mentioning that the Worcester Public Library’s March Meowness program (show a cat pic and get your fees cleared) made it into the Grey Lady!

In other actually good news, we got a bunch of EPA money to buy electric school buses for WPS use! Take that, Durham!

Federal officials visited Worcester on Monday to celebrate a $5.8 million Environmental Protection Agency grant that will allow the school district to buy 15 electric school buses to complement the all-gasoline fleet. 

And before I hit the road, here’s a clip I pulled of the moment during last night’s stream me and Brendan Melican discovered that City Councilor Kate Toomey liked an obscure tweet promoting the White Nationalist propaganda line that the Irish were the first slaves in America—on the last day of Black History Month. One of the all-time funniest moments of the Worcestery Council Theatre 3000 program. 

We’ll be back on next Tuesday at 6:15 p.m. Follow the Twitch to tune in!

Ok bye bye