Bobby Allen Writes a Letter…
By Jim Conley • Aug 28th, 2006 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
…in today’s Boston Globe defending Deb Goldberg’s chief executive duties as a Brookline Selectman. He worries that Goldberg’s many alleged accomplishments will be given over to Town Administrator Richard Kelliher, saying:
“It is true we are blessed in Brookline with an excellent town administrator, but he serves under the direction and is subject to the authority of the Board of Selectmen.”
See, I’m willing to assign the shape Brookline is in to Deb Goldberg and current Chair Bobby Allen. And if the firefighters claim were true, I’d be happy to say it was Deb’s doing. But it’s not.
What is Goldberg and Allen’s doing is a town where cronies get sweetheart deals, a town where the pension fund is nearly busted, a town where there is as much long term debt on the books as we take in for property taxes and a town where not one dollar has been cut from the municipal budget.
Team Allen and Goldberg presided over a school renovation debacle that ended up costing the Town an extra $3 million. They poured money into a golf course and underfunded another school renovation by $14 million. Earlier this year a plaster ceiling collapsed in the school, missing a group of preschoolers by a half-hour.
They put a hotel on Town property and negotiated a lease so weak that developers made $20 million and the Town got nothing.
Deb and Bobby also signed over responsibility to Kelliher for an Activity Use Limitation filing to the DEP (in 2002). Kelliher says in the filing, “there is no evidence of coal gas waste” (on town-owned property), even though it had been found in 1985. And even though plans called for putting a preschool playground at the site.
Who is the town’s business partner at the site in question? An LLC featuring Brookline developer Roger Casssin…a $3 thousand contributor (direct and indirect) to the Goldberg for Lt. Governor campaign.
It’d be a shame to downplay all that.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Bobby, excuse me, Robert Allen’s letter in support of Debbie, excuse me, Deb will serve as one of the top exhibits for a petition drive to change Brookline’s charter from the sleepy town he describes into an efficient form of city governance. In praising Debbie, excuse me, Deb, he:
1. Denigrates Town Meeting by stressing that the Selectmen “are vested with all municipal authority, except some duties reserved for Town Meeting.” I wonder how 240 TMMs will react to such a meaningless role in their lives?
2. Damns Town Administrator Rich Kelliher with faint praise: “It is true we are blessed in Brookline with an excellent town administrator, but he serves under the direction and is subject to the authority of the Board of Selectmen.” Yes, “blessed are the meek”, but in this case paid quite well by any standard for a puppet manipulated and maneuvered by five, count them, five Selectmen. Kelliher’s lucky he has recently been signed up for three years to continue to chauffeur the Selectmen through the shoals of our Muddy River community.
3. Points to the thankless hours “for little or not pay” performed by Selectmen, noting that “The time commitment is often a deterrent to potential candidates.” Despite this, the current Board includes four, count them, four attorneys, who apparently have not been deterred from running for election/reelection despite their busy and lucrative practices. (The immediately preceding Board consisted entirely of lawyers!) Does this suggest that lawyers are the only ones who can afford to perform public service at little or no pay? (Keep in mind that Debbie, excuse me, Deb, has been a lawyer since 1983, although in her moneyed (poor little rich girl) race for Lt. Gov. she relies upon her business credentials as an heiress to the Stop & Shop dynasty and not her legal credentials.) There is a consumer adage “You get what you pay for.” So I guess Brookline is getting what it isn’t paying for?
The one thing that Bobby, excuse me, Robert does get straight is not adopting George W. Bush’s malapropism “misunderestimated” in describing Debbie’s, excuse me, Deb’s “experience and background” while serving Brookline as one of five Selectmen in the role of “the chief elected and executive officers of the town.” So in looking at Debbie’s, excuse me, Deb’s “abilities [to serve] as lieutenant governor” perhaps voters should look at her coattails dragging along the four other Selectmen with whom she served in guiding Brookline “through tough economic times.” Bobby, excuse me, Robert, I feel your Payne.
Archie,
For some time now I have been reading with great interest and intrigue your comments about changing Brookline’s form of government. I am keeping an open mind and want to learn more.
Under the current system, real estate developers have to buy 5 selectmen in order to control the town government. Under a mayoral system, wouldn’t they only have to buy one mayor? Please explain how the mayoral system will be better.
I am not criticizing, I just want to understand your position better.
Couldn’t other modifications have the same effect you seek, such as changing the election schedule so that we would not have staggered Selectman terms, but rather would elect all 5 at once?
I enjoy reading your insightful comments. Keep it up.
Steven
Steven,
I don’t know if it is appropriate to use Jim’s site as a chat room. But, in response to some of your questions:
1. I do not focus on real estate developers buying selectmen. There are of course concerns with campaign contributions that are not that well regulated because of limitations imposed by the First Amendment. To the extent that campaign contributions to public officials may influence them in their official duties, whether a municipality is a town or a city doesn’t make a difference. Rather, it is a matter of practical accountability. My Guest Commentary “the buck stops (w)here?” in today’s Brookline TAB may be informative on accountability.
2. I think the statutes governing the election of selectmen for a town require the staggered terms of three years. Having all five selectmen elected at the same time would not solve the problem, even if the statutes could be changed. Just think of such an election every three years with all the candidates competing for the five spots. Staggered terms work well for sleepy towns. But Brookline has a population of over 55,000, making Brookline much larger than a fair number of communities less sophisticated than Brookline (in its view) that are cities. Part-timers and volunteers can be inefficient. Think of firefighting - some small towns have volunteer firefighters who perform a valuable service to their communities; but at some point a community has to pay their firefighters for their important role. Do we get a bargain in Brookline with 240 unpaid TMMs and five selectmen paid modest amounts? How much heavy lifting can volunteers do in this day and age when just making a living, paying taxes and mortgages, educating children, etc, requires most of one’s time? Heck, even in semi-retirement I am busy with many matters and thus unable to commit to volunteer public service (other than my opinions, which many may not consider to be public service).
3. I do believe that Brookline would be better off with a city form of governance and plan to continue to make the case. I think that there should be open discussion and debate; but such discussion and debate would be meaningless if limited to the 240 TMMs, five selectmen, members of town boards and agencies and other insiders generally. Rather, the non-insiders must become involved and have their voices heard. The insiders enjoy the status quo, which has become a fulfilling part of their social lives, giving them a vested interest to protect.