On Brookline

Apparently, to the town hall apologists, the post below is much ado about nothing. Of course, we’re in the ethical realm here and that will always be lost on our local government’s groupies. Let me break it down for less addled readers.

First, the organization “Yes for Brookline” is financed largely by town government officials, the people who could have imposed budget cuts to achieve the same end as an override, but did not. Instead, they put together a sham study committee and engineered a crisis to get a tax increase. How can you trust that they say an override is a last resort if they’ve enthusiastically financed the campaign to get one? [See "Yes for Brookline's" campaign finance reports]

But that’s not new.

What is new—and troubling—is that we now have confirmation that “Yes for Brookline” paid $4,000 to a New York polling firm to pre-test the referendum questions you’ll be staring at on Tuesday. The polling company tested a number of scenarios (according to those who received calls) and the selectmen used the results to draft the ballot. [See this earlier post on polling]

That’s outrageous.

It’s outrageous because it’s proof that the Selectmen have asked for an override based not on what we need, but based on what they think they can get. It’s outrageous because it was never disclosed to the public that the ballot was crafted this way (because the committee won’t release the poll results). And it’s outrageous because of the contempt in which they hold us.

That’s why I won’t vote to give these sleazeballs another dime.

Update: Selectman and “Yes for Brookline” Chair Betsy DeWitt tells me that the poll results are not subject to Massachusetts’ public records laws. I’m not sure that is correct. And I’ll need to find out.

I don’t know why DeWitt wouldn’t just release the survey results and questionnaire so we can have a look.