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.