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.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
