Brookline DPW Subject of Federal Investigation.
By Jim Conley • Dec 19th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
The TAB’s Jessica Scarpati reports that the US Attorney’s Office in Boston is investigating the Brookline DPW’s water division on suspected public corruption charges.
Rumors have been circulating for months that federal agents were poking around town government. Town Counsel Jennifer Dopazo now confirms it, 
and says the town is “fully co-operating with the investigation” (only Dopazo would make such an apparent expectation of the public interest a talking point).
Can you be Massachusetts’ best run community (the town hall slogan) while you’re in the cross hairs of the Feds? We’ll see.
And let’s not forget that when the Brookline Selectmen had two chances - yes two - to see for themselves what was going on in the DPW, they called the issues (mis-statements in a federal grant application and an employee “flower fund” financed by selling town property) a “mountain out of a molehill” (quoting Selectman Robert “The Mensch” Allen).
Here’s to hoping that the moles keep piling on the dirt…
Update: Here’s the Channel 4 story on the investigation.
Update (2): It’ll be interesting to learn how Dopazo, the selectmen and Brookline Town Administrator Richard Kelliher dealt with the US Attorney’s office when they started asking questions. The typical response by the sixth floor is to: 1). say you don’t know the whole story 2.) say that you’re deranged because you keep asking the questions, and 3.) pretend that you no longer exist in attempt to humiliate you on the deepest level.
I just can’t see how that works on people who are holding subpoenas.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
The Channel 4 link includes two very short paragraphs at the end:
“If you’re wondering why the FBI is involved in a case like this, there are federal laws against government corruption.
“We’re told local investigators often call in the feds to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.”
The first paragraph can be frightening to Town officials. As to the second paragraph, was there a local whistleblower involved? Does Brookline have any local investigators concerned with “any appearance of a conflict of interest” based upon past history in our Town?
Maybe in typical Brookline fashion, we should have the Department of Public Works investigate themselves and issue a report to the Selectmen.
The thought that this matter may have surfaced from whistlleblowing (see the first comment) is a reminder to the Town of its obligation to periodically keep Town employees informed of their rights and obligations under the Whistleblower Police finally adopted by the Selectmen (after only 11 years!) late last year. A brochure was prepared just about this time last year on the Whistleblower Policy for distribution with other required notices to Town employees. I had expressed my view that the brochure may not have strictly or even spiritually complied with the Whistleblower statute requirements. (My series Blowing the Whistle can be accessed via links at the left of this Blog - take a look at Part III.)
So as a public service, I urge Town employees to study with care their rights and obligations under the Whistleblower Policy; and I urge Town officials to review with care last year’s brochure and perhaps update it to provide greater detail as to Town employees’ rights and obligations, including the one that permits for the recovery of damages plus attorney’s fees in pursuing court claims for retaliatory actions by the Town and/or its offcials against a Town employee who blows the whistle.
The sound of that whistle, or its threat, can prevent or minimize government corruption. Who knows, the sounds just might override the need for an override.