CPA Mud

It is an old political trick to attack the individuals expressing a view, rather than the merits of their views, when one is unwilling to have an honest and open debate about an issue. Dismissing the position of three thoughtful, responsible Egremont citizens by labeling them as "libertarians," which the leading proponent of the CPA did this week, is a classic example of that trick.

Laura Allen has been the chairman of the Egremont finance committee for many years. She has served with distinction, and no knowledgable Egremonter has ever criticized her performance in protecting the interests of Egremont taxpayers. She is known for her thorough investigation and analysis of financial issues. Bill Weigle has served Egremont as a selectman, a member of the finance committee and in many other capacities for over 50 years. Kevin Zurrin single handedly uncovered the billing problems at the water department, and is also known for his indepth analysis of town issues. Rather than dismissing the views of people with that level of distinction by labeling them, it would be better to listen to the reasons they take the position they have.

But if they are going to be labeled, at least the label should be accurate. Bill Weigle is a life long democrat. Laura Allen is hardly a libertarian; her public positions over the years disprove that contention. Kevin Zurrin may be a conservative, but he is not a libertarian. Furthermore, libertarians are not opposed to all taxes. 

I would have hoped for an open, honest dialog on the CPA. If the proponents intend simply to attack the opponents, and continue with misstatements and mischaracterizations like they made Tuesday night, that will not happen.

Turner's Compensation

In looking through the town's finances, I was a bit surprised to find that Bruce Turner makes almost $100,000 per year.  He makes somewhere in the vicinity of $75 to $80 thousand from the school  district, another $15,000 or so as the town's accountant and $4,000 or $5,000 as a selectman. 


Shouldn't there be some sort of limitation on how many paid positions someone can hold?  It seems that half the town employees are at the public trough multiple times.


Why doesn't the town try to hire people who aren't subject to conflicts of interest?

Police Again

I went to a court hearing in GB yesterday, the subject of which was a motion to suppress the evidence in the May 2013 drug bust of two young men at French Park because of the break-in to the evidence locker by Officers Kemp and Pezze.  I wanted to see if there would be any revelations about the chaos surrounding the police department during last year.  There weren't.


On the legal aspects, I suspect the judge is going to rule against the motion because he believed the testimony that the break-in didn't compromise the evidence.  Officer Carlson had carefully sorted and inventoried the drug evidence and placed it in sealed plastic bags.  Officers Kemp and Pezze broke in to the evidence locker and looked at what was there, but apparently didn't open or disturb the plastic bags themselves and their contents.


One of the defendants' attorneys tried to argue that the whole police department was in such a state of chaos that  blame and responsibility should have fallen on the entire department and the selectmen, not just Officers Kemp and Pezze, but the judge thought that argument went too far, saying the hearing was only about whether the evidence should be suppressed, not  whether a cancer had spread through government in Egremont.


Four officers testified - Shaw, Carlson, Kemp and Pezze - and it was pretty clear that they had coordinated their testimony long before the hearing.  A number of questions that I had hoped would be addressed weren't.  For example, the saga of Officer Pilone wasn't mentioned, nor the selectboard's rejection of Chief Shaw's recommendation that Officer Carlson be fired.  And Chief Shaw testified that he had recommended Officers Kemp and Pezze be suspended and not reappointed, but never said why he had changed that recommendation or, if he didn't, why the selectboard overruled him. 


So I came away from the hearing still uncertain about what really happened during 2013 but still suspicious about a cover-up.  Who was involved in the cover-up remains a mystery.


The one outcome that was very clear was that Selectman Brazie's public statement at a selectman's meeting in June that "there was no break-in to an evidence locker" was comparable to another politician's statements that "if you like your health insurance you can keep it."  At least that politician has apologized publicly and profusely.


 And you wonder why I'm suspicious?