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.