Rumors.
By Jim Conley • Jul 18th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Tomorrow’s front page TAB story couldn’t be worse for the Town Hall team. The three-inch headline carries Selectman’s Chair Gil Hoy’s “rumor” explanation over the Farmer’s Market debacle. That’s some rumor, being memorialized in a memo and all. A memo that was given to the Selectmen, incidentally.
But get this. Earlier today, I made a public records request of Town Administrator Richard Kelliher to hand over all the documents on the “rumored” fee increase. The request was principally made of the Selectmen and economic development department officials, for all of whom Kelliher is records custodian.
A couple of hours ago I asked Peter Ditto, the Town’s Chief Engineer for the new calculation of lost revenue at the lot [see post below]. Here’s Ditto’s response:
“I have forwarded the information I have on the farmers market to [Town Counsel] Jennifer Dopazo for distribution as part of your freedom of information request.”
Dopazo? Ah sheez, here we go again. I didn’t ask Dopazo for any records and I certainly didn’t ask for any material that could be exempted under the Public Records Law. So, if there’s no merit to the so-called rumor, there’d be no documents. And if there were no merit to the so-called rumor, there’d be no need to involve the Town’s lawyer.
“Reporting on rumor” is the new attack meme out of Brookline Town Hall. I first had it thrown at me after suggesting that Nancy Daly’s inability to grab the Selectman’s gavel back in May [see previous post] was due to the revulsion others had in knowing about the plan to elevate her.
And now this on the Farmer’s Market. Of course, you can’t call things rumor if you don’t obfuscate. And that’s why Dopazo’s on the case. What a wonderful use of our tax dollars.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Town officials are so super sensitive to public records requests that they have made it into an adversarial system, using Town Counsel’s office with its four (4) attorneys to “filter” through the records of Town officials requested. Perhaps the approach of Town Counsel’s office to this apparent “filtering” process is similar to legal discovery procedures for document production. If so, it is clearly out of whack with the spirit, if not the letter, of the public records laws. I would suggest that if Town Counsel’s office is to be involved with public records requests on a regular or routine basis that Town Counsel’s office should provide to the requester an affidavit of compliance with the public records laws in responding to the request; and Town Counsel’s office should be required to retain records of the manner in which it “coordinated” with the various Town Departments for the production of public records in response to a request.
I have a major reservation about the role of Town Counsel’s office in the production of public records. Does, will, Town Counsel’s office review in detail the contents of public records furnished to it by these various Town Departments in response to a request? (I assume that each Town Department would itself identify its public records that are responsive to the request.) If so, and such review discloses a so-called “smoking gun” document, what may be the ramifications in the decision whether or not to produce that document? A public records request is not a lawsuit (although a lawsuit may result from such a request) and the process should not be adversarial (prior to a lawsuit). After all, the purpose of the public records laws is to add to openness of honest government. Might Town Counsel’s office serve as a barrier in this process? Legal training creates an adversarial mindset which might be difficult for Town Counsel’s office to compartmentalize in its new role of responding to simple public records requests. Why make a big magilla out of simple public records requests?