The Latest Flynn Diatribe

A newly elected selectman can be forgiven for making some mistakes. But when he reads a prepared three-point memorandum into the record that, he asserts, is “fact based upon my own research,” you’d hope he’d get the three points right. Or at least not get all three wrong.

Charlie Flynn’s continuing quest to lambaste the members of the Egremont finance committee for supporting his opponent in the last election has already resulted in four of them resigning in disgust, much to Flynn’s liking and to the detriment of Egremont’s taxpayers. But Charlie can’t seem to stop the venom even when he gets his way. One of the resigning members - Frank Penglase – submitted a resignation letter that set forth the months-long poisonous conduct of Flynn and Bruce Turner that led to the resignations, and Flynn didn’t like it one bit. So he simmered for a week or so and then lashed back with his memorandum, formally presented to a recent selectmen’s meeting.

His “point one” says the Egremont legal fees account is under the exclusive control of the selectmen and can’t be used without their prior approval. (That’s his emphasis, not mine.) Well, duh! With few exceptions, ALL town accounts require a sign-off from the selectmen before payments are made out of them. It’s called accounting, Charlie. There’s nothing special about the legal fees account. By analogy, he must think the highway department shouldn’t commit to pay for sand without the prior approval of the selectmen. And it gets worse. He goes on to say that the expenditure must be “voted on at a public meeting.” That procedure has never been followed and would make town government grind to a halt.

His “point two” is that the finance committee’s retention of a lawyer to advise it with respect to an open meeting complaint - filed by Flynn himself! - had nothing to do with its activities as a town board. So meeting has nothing to do with a board’s activities? Well, no, that’s not what Charlie really means, he means the alleged subject matter – namely endorsing his opponent in the election - of the alleged meeting was outside the duties and activities of the finance committee. But the finance committee members, who aren’t stupid, carefully avoided meeting to do that. The members individually signed an endorsing letter without discussing it among themselves in a meeting. So the allegation is false. Charlie’s position (amplified by Bruce Turner) has the horrible result that board members aren’t protected if a charge that the board acted outside its duties and activities is made against them, when THE CHARGE IS COMPLETELY FALSE.

Charlie’s “point three” is that town officials are afforded legal protection by the town’s insurer. Egremont has for years had a policy and practice of protecting town officials against liability, and the town has chosen to cover itself by obtaining insurance. The existence of the insurance doesn’t relieve the town of its obligations. (Think about things like deductibles, and lapses in coverage. Are board members supposed to constantly police the existence and coverage of the insurance?) Charlie seems to think that the town’s obligation is somehow superseded by the very existence of insurance. Wrong. But his analysis gets even worse. He says the insurance pays to defend a board member “accused of malfeasance, misappropriation of town funds, dereliction of duty or other legal infractions.” He seems to be mixing up what the insurance covers and what it specifically excludes from coverage. (Does he really think an embezzling employee – rather than the embezzled town – is covered?)

Doesn't Egremont deserve better than this? Do your homework, Charlie, before you go off half cocked.

Vendetta (Part 6) (Part 5 to come later)

Some things speak loudly for themselves. Below is a letter to the editor published in the Eagle on November 30:

"Those who are familiar with Egremont politics know there is a small but intolerant group of individuals here who don't have the slightest clue why a citizen volunteers in the first place to serve on a town board or committee. To those who revel in the entertainment value of anger and resign under the guise of indignation, all we can say is, "Here's your hat, what's your hurry?"

"The only crisis we see in Egremont is the ongoing arrogance of individuals who prefer to waste countless amounts of time finger-pointing blame instead of working together toward addressing the town's important issues.

"We invite the past and present members of the Egremont Finance Committee to turn their mirror of self-righteous honesty onto themselves. Hopefully, they will then recognize the true meaning of public service and Egremont can once again get back to important town business.

"Tom Haas and Juliette Haas"

The perfidy, intolerance and narrowmindedness of this letter are breathtaking. Read it again, slowly. Feel the anger. But note that it is completely devoid of substance. The letter does not in any way criticize the quality of the service rendered by the finance committee and its members; the writers and their friends at town hall have never - I repeat never - objected to the performance of the members of the finance committee, only their politics. The letter severely castigates human beings who the Haas's know little or nothing about and, in at least one case, who the Haas's have never even met and wouldn't recognize if they did meet. And it does all that after the members of the finance committee have resigned, so it accomplishes no civic purpose. It's just plain mean.

I ask once again: Who are the people in town who are divisive?

The Congregational Church and Emergencies

When there's a severe storm in town, older folks often need a place they can go to if their power is out or they need shelter. For years, the Congregational Church has served that purpose. It's not ideal - it doesn't have a place to shower and it's missing other elements that an emergency shelter is supposed to have, but it's better than nothing.

Bill Weigle has asked the selectboard for a few hundred dollars to provide some materials - cots, blankets, etc. - for filling that need. The Church can't afford them. Seems like a no brainer, right?

Not. Two of the selectmen - Turner and Flynn - don't like Weigle and therefore have said no. They don't propose any alternative other than the Sheffield school, which is too far away to fill the need in most cases. How about town hall? Or one of the firehouses? No proposals, just a "no" to the church (er, to Weigle).

If Charlie Proctor - a pillar of the church - had made the request, what do you think would have happened?

Turner's stated reason for saying no is that the town can't provide money to a private entity. Now there's a curious position. I hope he remembers it when the selectboard votes on all those charitable contributions that the town is asked to make. It certainly hasn't stopped him from approving them in the past, but maybe he's had an epiphany. We'll see.

Vendetta (Part 4)

At a recent meeting of the selectboard, two members - Turner and Flynn - again refused to pay the $200 legal bill submitted by the finance committee. Flynn even had the audacity to discuss the matter and vote on it even after a request was made for him to recuse himself.

When asked what the rationale for this refusal was, neither Turner nor Flynn could elucidate one. They only mentioned again that what the finance committee had done was "political" - whatever that means - and without regard to the fact that the Flynn allegation (which has no basis) was that the open meeting law had been violated, a charge that has nothing to do with the "political" endorsement that he doesn't like. Turner and Flynn don't seem to be able to distinguish between Flynn's open meeting complaint and his ethics complaint. That's not surprising since they don't really care. They just want to punish the members of the finance committee for being brazen.

One certainly suspects that their real agenda is to make the finance committee members so disgusted that they quit and Turner and Flynn can then appoint their cronies to the committee. They've already succeeded in one case. A member of the committee, after being subjected to Turner's and Flynn's tirade at the meeting, would have resigned on the spot but Turner wouldn't even recognize her, despite the fact that she was a town official. That itself is a big procedural no-no.

You might think that that attempted resignation was just a response to the heat of the moment. No such luck. She resigned in writing a day or so after the meeting. So the Turner/Flynn campaign has brought down its first victim.

It would be a disaster if Turner and Flynn's conduct results in the finance committee members quitting in disgust. I know most of them are considering it. It's the best finance committee Egremont has had in many years. If you know any of the members, please call them, give them your support and urge them not to succumb to this irresponsible vendetta.

The Risks of Volunteering to Serve in Egremont

Thinking of volunteering for a town board or committee? Before you do, make sure you're liked by the selectmen, and then act in a way that causes them to continue to like you. If you cross them, they may not protect you against liability, even if one or more of them created the liability!

That's clearly the result of Turner and Flynn's vendetta against the finance committee. Those two are pissed at the members of the finance committee for supporting Flynn's opponent in the last election. So Flynn - slyly assuming that the finance committee MUST have met in order to sign the endorsement (he doesn't seem to be able to fathom that they could have independently signed it, which is what happened) - filed an open meeting complaint against the finance committee. The members of the committee didn't particularly care for this attack on their integrity, and sought legal advice on how to deal with it. Town counsel was obviously conflicted (and said so) so the committee hired a lawyer in Great Barrington. He told them how to respond, which they did, and sent a bill for $200.

The town has adopted a state law providing that board and committee members will be protected by the town against liability (including legal fees) for things arising in the course of their performance. In the past, the town has done that. But Flynn and Turner refuse to pay the legal bill because, uh, well, despite being asked, they don't have any reason. The real reason, of course, is that they don't like the committee members. And note, very importantly, that Flynn himself created the problem by filing the complaint. Do you see any perniciousness here?

So don't do something the selectmen don't like if you're on a board or committee. Be a toady at all times. If, God forbid, you get sued for some action you or your board takes, the current selectmen - thumbing their noses at the town's obligation to protect you - may vote not to indemnify you just because they don't like you (or your performance). And at least Flynn seems to see nothing wrong with being the one bringing an action against you - without any justification - and then refusing to pay the freight.

I know of several people who are considering resigning from town boards and committees because of this situation - one already has - and many others who won't volunteer because of it. Do Flynn and Turner think their stubbornness is serving the best interests of the town? Or maybe are they just insuring that boards and committees are populated by people who agree with them? You decide.

Vendetta (Part 3)

If you think there's been a violation of the MA open meeting law, you file a complaint with the board or committee that you think violated it, and that board or committee must send you a response explaining why they did or didn't violate it. Charlie Flynn filed a complaint with the finance committee alleging that the endorsement of Laura Allen's candidacy by its members must have violated the law, because how could they have done that without a meeting. In accordance with the law, and with the advice of counsel, the finance committee responded that the members had individually signed on to the endorsement and no meeting took place. End of story, right?

Not if you're Charlie Flynn on a vendetta. If the complainant doesn't like the response, he can file an appeal with the folks in Boston who police these things. And that's what Charlie did. Anyone with the slightest experience in these matters - and I have to assume that includes Charlie - knows that that appeal disappears into some obscure file some place, never to be seen again. The Boston policing folks (I'm told there are a grand total of two of them) have better things to do with their time than investigating alleged violations of the open meeting law. They're too busy going after officials with their hands in the public till, or who have been taking bribes, etc., things that too many MA politicians commit all too often. So it's extremely unlikely that anything will ever be heard again concerning Charlie's appeal. It will just sit there.

The explanation given by the finance committee to Charlie makes eminent sense (and since I'm the one who prepared the endorsement and got the members to sign it, I know it's true). He can't possibly think there will be some sort of righteous punishment inflicted on the members of the finance committee by the powers-that-be in Boston. So why would Charlie file an appeal? To continue his vindictive harassment of the members of the finance committee for daring to endorse his opponent. If he can cobble up some other explanation, he can post it by comment on this entry. He knows how to do that.

Vendetta (Part 2)

Here's what has happened since my previous posting on the vendetta against the finance committee being waged by Charlie Flynn and Bruce Turner.

Recall that Flynn claims he filed a complaint with the state ethics commission against members of the finance committee. (I say "claims" because he has chosen, in classic star chamber fashion, to trumpet the complaint without ever giving anyone - not even the members of the finance committee - a copy or disclosing what the complaint says.) He also filed a complaint charging the finance committee with violating the open meeting law.

So Laura sought town counsel's advice on how to handle these two complaints against a town committee filed by a citizen. (Charlie filed the first one before being elected selectman, and filed the second one expressly as a citizen, not a selectman.) Town counsel naturally expressed discomfort with giving advice since Charlie was now a selectman, and,in representing a town, counsel owes at least initial allegiance to the selectboard. So the finance committee chose to contact outside counsel, who gave them advice which they presumably followed.

But when Laura summarized the situation at a selectboard meeting and mentioned that the finance committee would be submitting a bill from counsel for payment, Flynn and Turner rebelled, indicating that they thought it shouldn't be payed by the town. Burdsall disagreed. Since no bill had been presented, the issue was at that point an academic one. And it should have stayed that way until a bill was presented.

But Flynn took it upon himself to raise the matter at the next selectboard meeting and definitively stated that he would not approve it if submitted. Turner agreed, noting as well that the town's insurance might cover the bill if the insurer had been notified beforehand; a fair point if the town had adopted a policy to that effect, but it hasn't. Again, Burdsall said he thought the bill should be paid.

Flynn seems not to have any grasp of what a conflict of interest is. He filed the complaints and shouldn't come within a mile of any discussion about covering the cost of defending against them. But inexplicably he was the one who put the matter on the agenda for the selectman's meeting and then raised it at the meeting.

The town has adopted a state law saying that elected and appointed officials will be indemnified against claims and lawsuits brought against them when acting as officials. That is eminently sensible. Volunteers, especially unpaid ones, shouldn't have to bear the risk and expense of defending against such claims. For example, last year, members of the hydrant committee sought and obtained assurances from the selectboard that they were indemnified should they be sued for taking care of the hydrants.

So Flynn and Turner can't refuse to pay the counsel bill or otherwise refuse to indemnify the finance committee members because the town has agreed to do so and wisely so. What the selectboard could do, if they chose to, is to adopt a policy that reasonable prior approval is necessary before incurring outside counsel costs; any such policy would be prospective only. But they can't just refuse to follow the law.

Flynn can't even discuss the matter, let alone vote on it, because he's the one who filed the complaints. He's already acted in a way that would permit an ethics complaint about him, and if he's wise he'll now say nothing further on the matter. (And he'll finally release a copy of what he filed.)

If you don't see this for what it is - a vendetta against the finance committee - consider this: If complaints had been filed against, for example, the board of health, and town counsel were conflicted from dealing with them, and the board of health hired outside counsel, would Flynn and Turner take the position the bill shouldn't be paid? And would they do that even before it was submitted?

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this is the potential impact on volunteering for town boards and committees. It appears that a volunteer against whom a claim is brought will or will not be protected by the town depending on whether two selectmen do or don't like the volunteer. If the volunteer puts up a fight, he or she should ultimately prevail because those two selectmen can't override the law. But who wants to have to go through that fight?

Election (Part 3)

This is the third in a four-part series on the 2011 selectman's election.

As election day approached, it was clear the election would be close. It began to swing Laura's way when Charlie Flynn's Facebook page was disseminated, showing that he was a very conservative Republican in a pretty Democrat town. To counter that, Marj Wexler sent an email blast just before election day that changed more than enough votes from Laura to Charlie to win the election for him. I assume Charlie is grateful. The email Marj sent follows:

"Fellow Egremont Democrats,

"I apologize for using email for a political purpose. However, extraordinary events require otherwise-unacceptable means.

"Let's face it -- we have two right-wing candidates for selectboard. Laura's politics are clear. Anyone who has read Richard Allen's blog . . . knows that he is a destructive, divisive force in Egremont. Laura has never distanced herself in any way from his views.

. . . .

"I have watched Charlie listen to, and weigh, other people's ideas. I've seen him recognize an error in his thinking and adjust his position. He has a son in the active military, and another who is actively anti-war. He has to know how to respect both sides of an issue!

"Charlie thought he'd be running against Mr. Cumsky in this election -- and that's exactly what he's doing. Laura is Mr. Cumsky's choice -- was last year and is again this year. I voted -- in fact I campaigned! -- for Mr. Cumsky three years ago. I never guessed he would be so divisive, could create such havoc. It's been intensely embarrassing. And he's a Democrat, for heaven's sake! If Laura is elected, watch whom she appoints to the Finance Commission.

"OK, that's my rant. Now for my bumper sticker:

"DON'T LET RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS USE SARAH PALIN TO HIGHJACK OUR LOCAL ELECTION!"

While the email speaks for itself, several points should be made. First, one wonders how many of the recipients were from the Egremont neighbors web sites. Second, with no evidence or knowledge, Marj attributes my political philosophy to Laura, about as sexist a comment as I can imagine. (Not to mention maligning me in the process.) Third, she denigrates Laura for being Bruce Cumsky's choice, with absolutely no mention of Laura's qualifications, carrying the sexism even further.

I appreciate that people can do and say things in the heat of an election that perhaps they regret. And Marj did later send out an email apology. But was it really an apology, or just a ploy? Consider: (1) The apology was to her readers, not to Laura or me (to whom she has still not apologized). (2) It was sent too late to rescind the effect of the first email on the election. (3) Marj came to see Laura several days after the election offering (presumably with Charlie's acquiescence) that he would publicly "eat crow" if Laura would drop her recount request.

So just who are the "destructive, divisive" forces in town?

Election (Part 2)

This is the second in a series of entries on the May selectboard election.

The first entry identified a letter to the editor of the Eagle from Peter Goldberg shortly before the election as a major contributor to the election’s result. That letter is set forth in full below:

“It was with dismay that I noticed the recent, public statement of support by the Egremont Finance Committee members for Selectman candidate Laura Allen. In these times of great economic challenge, town taxpayers look to our officials and, especially our financial watchdogs, for their expertise and guidance. Along with the Select Board members, the Finance Committee members deserve our highest trust. Unfortunately, that trust has now been broken with the inappropriate endorsement of one particular candidate.

“As private citizens, Finance Committee members are certainly entitled to voice their support for the candidate of their choice. However, in this case, the entire membership has chosen to cross the line of neutrality and ethical standards. My primary disappointment comes about because, as individuals, I know each member to be of good character and well qualified to be on the committee.

“It is unfortunate that their collective decision has caused me to lose trust in their work for our town. Therefore, I believe that it would be most appropriate for the members to resign immediately, reapply for membership when the new Select Board is seated, and assure the taxpayers that they will refrain from future actions that jeopardize their relationship with the public trust.”

I have read and re-read this letter many times in an attempt to unravel its inconsistencies and ascribe some legitimacy to what seems to be nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the views of five voters who favor the candidate Mr. Goldberg opposes, and to do so by defaming them. I’ve failed. Perhaps readers of this blog can offer rational explanations, and I encourage comments doing so.

It’s illuminating to briefly outline the backgrounds of the individuals who Mr. Goldberg castigates. In alphabetical order: Frank Penglase spent 38 years in corporate finance before retiring to Egremont; he was a senior vice president and treasurer of McGraw-Hill. Walter Rubenstein is an accountant who founded and ran an accounting firm in New York City for over 40 years. Steve Schoenfeld spent his entire career in financial services; in Egremont he has been a co-head of Egremont on Parade and a trustee of the French Park Fund. Laurie Warner has lived in Egremont for 30 years and manages the business of Wm. Warner Construction. Bill Weigle has lived in Egremont for over 70 years; he has been a selectman and a moderator and was a volunteer fireman for over 40 years. I believe none of them was ever publicly accused of being unethical until Mr. Goldberg chose to do so.

The First Amendment is critical to our democracy, and the most important part of the First Amendment is its absolute protection of a citizen’s right to speak out about candidates for office without restriction, no matter how right or wrong the views expressed or how abusive and critical those views are. And the protection obviously doesn’t stop applying because the views are expressed by a group of citizens rather than by one citizen. We need to constantly remind ourselves – and others – that rules and policies that muzzle or censor political views are steps on the path to totalitarianism.

And it is preposterous to suggest that a citizen – or group of citizens - lose the right to speak out about candidates by volunteering to serve on town committees. Indeed, the experience acquired by serving on a town committee may result in someone’s views becoming MORE relevant to the electorate. To try to muzzle or censor a citizen’s right – individually or collectively – to speak out strikes at the heart of our democratic system and should be condemned as strongly as possible.

It is important that people such as Mr. Goldberg be entitled to publish attacks on candidates, including attacking a candidate’s ethics. But that is not what he did. Rather, he attacked SUPPORTERS of a candidate. Worse, he didn’t even attack their views, but rather just accused them of being unethical, presumably for the offense of exercising their Constitutional right to express viewpoints about a candidate’s qualifications within their field of expertise.

I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Mr. Goldberg's "dismay" is simply misguided or something else. In any event, it seems to me that he owes the five of his neighbors named above a very sincere apology.

Egremont 2011 Election

This is the first of four entries I plan on the 2011 selectman election.

Several people - both Egremonters and outsiders - have asked me or Laura how she managed to lose. The answer is the skill, organization and diligence of the Flynn team. They outperformed my efforts as Laura's de facto campaign manager by a mile.

The team began preparing promptly after the 2010 election. They thought Bruce Cumsky would run for reelection in 2011, and their dislike for him was so strong that they would do anything to defeat him. Their first task was finding a very strong candidate, because Cumsky was a formidable opponent. The best they could do was Charlie Flynn, who had campaigned vigorously for Bruce Turner in 2010 and had endeared himself to the "defeat Cumsky" team.

Flynn had several election weaknesses, such as his being a staunch conservative in a town filled with liberals and that his election would put a second school employee on the selectboard, a potentially serious conflict. So the team's strategy was to downplay Flynn's positions and instead concentrate on Cumsky.

By the time Cumsky decided not to run for reelection, the team was so dedicated to defeating him that they couldn't help but be adamantly opposed to whoever replaced him. Transferring their dislike to Laura - which at first blush seems to be irrational - was not difficult since they considered her to be "too close to Cumsky" - a mantra they repeated often during the campaign - and they disliked her husband almost as much as they disliked Cumsky. The unfairness of that to Laura - and the patently sexist character of it - was disregarded.

It was not easy to attack Laura as if she were Cumsky. One of the members of the Flynn team (Peter Goldberg) even told Laura shortly before the election that he would have supported her had he known she would be running instead of Cumsky. So not surprisingly there were no attacks on her or her positions throughout the campaign. She was attacked solely through guilt by association.

Two events that could easily have swung the election to Laura were skillfully turned by the team to Flynn's benefit. First, the members of the finance committee publicly supported Laura because of the conflict issues that would inevitably arise from Flynn's being a school employee and member of the Southern Berkshire school committee. Bruce Turner is already disqualified from considering school issues as a result of being an employee of the school district and Flynn may well end up in the same position. The Flynn team quickly cobbled up a claim that the endorsement - which most of us, and the courts, would consider an exercise of First Amendment rights - somehow constituted an ethical violation. That caused voters to focus on the alleged violation and not on the substance of the conflict issue.

The second event was the discovery by someone of Flynn's own Facebook page, which clearly demonstrated his very conservative leanings. The page was widely emailed to voters. That event was cleverly blunted by the Flynn team by a widely distributed email claiming, with no factual support, that Laura was just as conservative as Flynn. Furthermore, the email stressed the theme that Flynn was actually running against Cumsky. While clearly insulting, the email swung at least a handful of voters back to Flynn.

I admire the tactics of the Flynn team if not its standards. As Laura's de facto campaign manager, had I been more aggressive in exposing those tactics, Laura might well have won.

Vendetta

The members of the finance committee publicly supported Laura Allen for selectman in the last election. Bruce Turner and Charlie Flynn don't like that. They don't think finance committee members should be able to express their support for a candidate. If this indefensible position were just an electioneering ploy, it would be reprehensible but transitory. But Turner and Flynn are on a vendetta against the finance committee. Don't believe it? Listen to their own words, spoken at the most recent selectboard meeting, well after the election:

Bruce Turner:

"I’ve got a concern that I’d like to make . . . . It troubles me that we have a finance committee that’s more concerned about the politics of this town rather than the business of this town. I also think it’s very unfortunate that they attack members of the board and members looking to be elected to the board because of the jobs we possess. As you know, we live in an area that doesn’t have a lot of good jobs around, and having a good job working with the school district I think is as good a job as any of the manufacturing jobs and a lot better than the manufacturing jobs in the area because we don’t have manufacturing in this area. We’ve become a very service-oriented community. . . . I’m deeply concerned and deeply troubled with the finance committee that we have now and I’m making that as an expression of my concern tonight."

Charles Flynn:

"As people may or may not be aware, because of the actions of the finance committee I have filed an ethics complaint with the state of Massachusetts as well as an open meeting law complaint with the state of Massachusetts. I would like to have a good relationship with this finance committee because I think it’s critical that the selectboard and the finance committee work closely together. If one were to look at the bylaws and look at Massachusetts general laws, the finance committee is an independent body that is to look after the finances of the town. And as Bruce said, it’s not a political body. I think those boundaries were stepped over during the election. Consequently, I do not feel that the current reappointees are people that I can support. . ."

P.S.: (1) No one on the finance committee attacked anyone "because of the jobs they possess." The members just pointed out their concern about the conflict issues that will arise if we have two selectmen who are closely affiliated with our schools. And they were right: those conflict issues have already arisen because of the rejection of the school budget and the school bond issue by two of the towns in our school district. And they'll keep arising, meaning we'll have only one independent selectman to protect the taxpayers and two who will often have to recuse themeselves, or worse. (2) The business of the town is somehow separate from the politics of the town? Not in this universe. (3) There is nothing in law or logic that makes one board or committee a "political body" and another one not. Where do they come up with this stuff? (4) Flynn's two complaints are specious. Town counsel has previously told the selectboard that muzzling the political views of town position holders violates their first amendment rights; and there was no violation of the open meeting law because the finance committee never met on the subject of Laura's candidacy. (5) The qualifications of the current members of the finance committee are really impressive. We're lucky to have them. Turner and Flynn just want people they can push around.

Police Station Redux

Some things just won't die no matter how often you shoot them. **** The townspeople who seem to have "edifice complex" are once again trying to put a new police station on the agenda for the May town meeting. Their rationale: The townspeople didn't understand the issue when they voted it down last November. (This is a typical elitist attitude. When a democratic vote goes against them, they attribute it to the voters' stupidity and conclude that those ignorant voters don't know what they're doing and we proponents are smarter than they are and must convince them that we're right.) **** As I've said many times, what the police building advocates ought to be doing, especially in light of the voters always having told them they don't want a new police station, is to analyze the police department's real needs - not "wouldn't it be nice" needs - and then strive to meet those needs by reallocating space at town hall, including whatever construction work might be necessary, to do it. There's plenty of space for that solution. For example, do the planning board and the conservation commission each need their own room at town hall? **** Grandiosity is often favored by those who don't mind paying more taxes. The pain they cause for those not so blessed is overlooked.

Democracy in Egremont

One expects dirty tricks in national politics, even at the state level. But in Egremont?

Republican or democratic party nominations for town offices aren't important enough to get excited about, but at least the process ought to be fair. That process always involves potential candidates expressing interest in being the nominee in writing to one or both parties, and their names being put on a ballot and then voted on by the few people who show up at the party caucus. The party leaders can exclude an interested person from being on the ballot, but that ought to be done only if there are very valid reasons to do so. Otherwise voters are denied the right to vote for whom they wish whether or not party leaders favor one candidate over others, just as is the case in primary votes for national or state offices.

In the latest town republican caucus, Laura Allen submitted a letter of interest in being the republican nominee for the selectboard four days before the date of the caucus. Recall that she was the republican nominee last year, so there can't be any legitimate reason not to put her on the caucus ballot. But when I showed up to vote at the caucus, her name was missing. I asked why. A republican official whose name I won't reveal right now said (1) he thought the letter she submitted was an advertisement that he threw away (try to make sense of that) and (2) that in any event the ballot had been prepared weeks before.

I can't believe politicos in Egremont could do this sort of thing. We should all condemn it loudly and forcefully. If the town hall denizens and their buddies are so jealous of their power as to play this way and thumb their noses at democracy, isn't it time to throw them all out?

Bruce Turner

Many of us tried to warn the voters last year that Bruce Turner might well be a big spender. Too bad people didn't listen. One of the warning signs last year was Turner's position that, since the town was close to paying off its past borrowings, it could "afford" to borrow more to pay for - among other things - a new police station. Now it looks like he meant it. At a recent selectboard meeting, he supported a proposal by the emergency management folks to look anew at a police station, and when the other two selectmen resisted, he proposed that the town spend $25,000 for yet another "needs assessment." That proposal is on hold, and before it gets a life of its own I suggest taxpayers make it clear to the selectboard - especially Bruce Turner - that that's a waste of money. Some years ago, the selectboard decided to annually raise the employees' share of the cost of health insurance until that share got up to a reasonable level. This year the share was to go up from 22% to 25%. When the selectboard recently voted to implement that scheduled increase, Turner objected, insisting that it should be accompanied by a raise in employee salaries. When the other two selectmen said no to that attempt, Turner voted against raising the employee contribution. Bruce Turner's positions likely stem from his having been a municipal employee for some time, so he's predisposed to favor increasing pay and benefits. I don't think those positions are in the taxpayers' interests. And Bruce is still clothed with that predisposition since he's now an employee of the school district. That fact alone should cause raised eyebrows. School expenses are almost half of the town's total budget, and Bruce must recuse himself from any discussions on school costs. So we have the equivalent of an absentee selectman regarding half of our budget, and one who's generally in favor of spending money regarding the other half. Is that what the voters want? I don't think so.

Unfunded Health Costs

State and local governments have usually ignored the financial ramifications of promising retirement benefits, including health insurance coverage, to employees. The accounting folks have finally gotten around to requiring those governments to at least acknowledge the future hit that taxpayers will take for being profligate. That includes Egremont. The town is not yet required to fund the future cost currently, but it should. Keep this item in mind when you consider the town budget at the town meeting in May. I'll bet the employees will try to downplay the matter. Here's hoping the finance committee raises it squarely.

Walking the South Village

The historical commission has published a brochure describing a walking tour of the buildings in the south village. It's packed with interesting info, even if you're not generally interested in this sort of stuff, and is well worth looking at whether or not you take the tour. Copies are available at town hall.

More on the Cumsky/Brazie Affair

Before you Monday morning quarterbacks reach conclusions, you should read the witness and police reports. If you think Cumsky should have just"man upped" to the situation, because Ron Brazie wouldn't really have hurt him, you might reach a very different conclusion from the reports. And you should be aware that, although Cumsky chose not to "press charges," the Egremont police decided the matter shouldn't just be dropped. They sought and obtained a court order pursuant to which Ron resigned his town positions and was ordered to stay away from town hall.

Let's not let the personalities distract us from the real problems exposed by this affair. First, the town cannot tolerate violence or threats of violence at town hall. That is -as it should be - the town's policy, and that policy includes a requirement that 911 be called immediately when an incident occurs. Second, at least one of the selectmen - guess who - didn't pay any attention to this affair for weeks after it occurred, and has now publicly admitted as much, and that he was culpable in not paying attention. That could open up the town to liability because the buck ultimately stops with the selectboard. Worse, that same selectman continues to insist that the selectboard can only act collectively, which would mean that if a masked gunman came into town hall and a selectman was there, he couldn't call 911 without first calling the other selectmen for permission. Yes, the selectmen generally act as a board; but that does not mean each of them is powerless. This is just a political ploy by that selectman to advance a different agenda. Third, the personnel situation at town hall is in a state of chaos. The employees don't get along, there is a lot of pettiness, and job performance is being adversely affected. (I don't want to get into detail here, but I assure you the situation is very very bad. Check it out.) And that is absolutely the responsibility of the selectboard. It is not enough for the selectboard to bring in a "consultant" to deal with the situation by asking everybody to make nice. They need to take immediate and firm action to rectify the situation.

Here's a question I don't know the answer to. Who is paying the fees of Judith Knight?

The Brazie-Cumsky Matter and the Berkshire Record

You may have seen an article in the Record on the disciplinary proceedings involving Mary Brazie, resulting from her failure to follow an instruction from Bruce Cumsky. I'll have lots to say about that after I finish my rooting around to get to the truth. But there are several things you ought to know right away.

First, the article in the Record follows that newspaper's tradition of almost always getting the story wrong, often totally wrong. But what do you expect from a newspaper that apparently has two requirements for being one of its reporters: you must have flunked high school English at least once; and you must be unable to use spell check or any of its equivalents.

Second, the performance of Judith Knight was abysmal. The disciplinary matter had been put on the agenda by Richard Burdsall, but it was tabled by the selectboard (not by Bruce Cumsky, as the Record implied). Nevertheless, Ms. Knight thereafter repeatedly attempted to speak on the matter despite being told repeatedly by Bruce Cumsky that she couldn't and should sit down. Her conduct was in clear violation of Massachusetts law regarding the conduct of public meetings (see chapter 39, section 23c). Perhaps Ms. Knight believes in civil disobedience, despite having run (unsuccessfully, thank God) for Berkshire County DA. This was not the time or place for civil disobedience.

Third, the action taken by the selctboard obviously made great sense. Rather than having a donnybrook at the meeting, they thought it best to try to reach some resolution by way of private discussions (and by the time you read this that may have happened). But some people attending the meeting apparently wanted to have a knock-down drag-out session right then and there. So much for civility in public discourse, at least in Egremont. Shame on those people.

Finally, the atmosphere at town hall couldn't be more toxic, and something will have to be done about it, but I'm not sure what until I get to the root of things. For those of you who work there, I suggest you try to remember what your job is, stick to doing it and stop trying to foment a revolution. That also goes for those of you who don't work there but for some reason can't seem to stop yourselves from interfering.

Cell Phone Service and the Planning Board

Mariner Tower has at long last submitted an application to the planning board to build a tower. It would be at Catamount, not at the previously discussed site on Route 23.

Bruce Cumsky, who is more aware of what Egremonters want than anyone, says that broadband Internet service is the issue that dwarfs all others in importance in Egremont. But cell phone service can't be far behind.

The Mariner Tower application will be a good test of the planning board's performance, and whether we should replace its members (or get rid of it entirely). Egremonters overwhelmingly support cell phone service, and I'm certain would overwhelmingly vote for this tower if they had the chance. So will the planning board do all it can (while following the law) to expedite approval, or will it drag its feet by hiring a consultant, nitpicking the application papers and insisting on a protacted hearing? Do they view their role as following the wishes of the voters, or do they want to substitute their judgment because they're smarter than we are? Let's all watch carefully.

If you support cell phone service, or even if you don't, make your views known. Write a letter to the planning board, with a copy to the selctboard. Better yet, attend at least one of the deliberations sessions. The planning board generally meets every other Monday evening.