Super Secret Incompetents.
By Jim Conley • Dec 14th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Here’s an interesting item on the agenda for next Tuesday’s meeting of the Clueless Five (i.e., The Brookline Selectmen):
PROPOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION: Town Counsel Jennifer Dopazo and Human Resources Director Sandra DeBow will appear to request authorization to settle legal claims.
Well golly, that’s interesting. By the time a legal matter reaches settlement, all parties have agreed to an arrangement, so no legal strategy is being discussed. And the presence of the Town’s Human Resources Manager would seem to indicate that a town employee is involved (and I’m pretty sure I know which one). Were the selectmen to discuss confidential information on an employee, an executive session might be warranted; but authorizing a monetary settlement wouldn’t tread there.
So why so secret, chumps?
Say, for the sake of argument, that the taxpayer’s are going to cover the legal expenses of an employee who has a grievance with the town. Agreeing to paying the employee’s legal bill (as the board did with the outrageous $11 thousand in legal expenses for DPW Commissioner DeMaio), would count as special compensation. And that needs to be considered in the full light of day.
But imagine further that the need to pay legal fees was triggered by really lousy advice from a really lousy town counsel’s office, that would be all the more reason for public disclosure. Or super secrecy.
On Wednesday, I’ll request the minutes of this executive session (and several others) to determine the need for stealth in these matters. But I can already say with certainty, it has to do with avoiding embarrassment on the part of town officials.
And given the way they embarrass themselves in public, this is likely beyond woeful.
Update: I’m wrong…it’s not the employee I think it is. Not yet anyway. But the question remains on the executive sessions. I mean, if an employee is receiving special compensation (through a legal settlement), that authorization should be disclosed publicly.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
It’s time to hear from a whistleblower.
The Calendar for the Selectmen’s 12/18/07 meeting in Item 9 addresses a Pilot Agreement between the Town and the Brookline Arts Center. In addition, this Item 9 includes consideration by the Board of a previously introduced Pilot Policy. Perhaps Brookline needs an airport (non-profit, of course) to accommodate all the Pilots coming to Town.
The Brookline Arts Center has been around for a long time and it has directly served our community, especially our children, for many, many years, relying upon voluntary contributions. I don’t know if the Brookline Arts Center volunteered for a Pilot Agreement, as it does not have funds to spare. If not truly voluntary, then perhaps the Town is so desperate for funds that in effect it put a gun to its head. This isn’t the same as the encroaching Children’s Hospital and Boston University, two organizations with deep pockets and with desires for further expansion in Brookline. How direct are Children’s and BU’s benefits to our Town in comparison to the Brookline Arts Center? The holiday season is not an appropriate time to burden the Brookline Arts Center.
Of course, it is possible that the Brookline Arts Center may wish to expand and may need some sort of zoning relief from the Town, perhaps triggering a “voluntary” Pilot Agreement. If so, such deals can create problems for abutters. Will Mr. Cirillo provide an explanation?
Also, does Mr. Cirillo now have his sights set on the Senior Center for a Pilot Agreement? Keep in mind that its patrons can vote whereas the children benefiting from the Brookline Arts Center can’t.
The Selectmen’s Calendar, Item 11, addresses appointments/reappointments to Town Boards and Commissions, including Dennis DeWitt to the Preservation Commission. Could this have been the reason why Selectman Betsy DeWitt recused herself from voting on Arthur Conquest’s appeal last week? Betsy must have known this vote was coming up. We all remember the brouhaha not that long ago when the Selectmen demoted Dennis by not reappointing him as a regular member and then appointed him as an associate member. Betsy apparently had not seen this coming at the time. It isn’t clear from Item 11 whether Dennis will be considered for the position of a regular member (reinstating him to his past glory) or merely reappointment as an associate. But Betsy may have been so concerned what might happen that possibly she decided to recuse herself on the Conquest vote, realizing that whatever her decision she might jeopardize Dennis’ appointment/reappointment what with the controversy between certain Selectmen involved with the Conquest vote. Perhaps Betsy thought she was between the rock and the hubby place. Now, Betsy did not give a reason for her recusal, so we can only speculate.
The voting on Dennis will of course be compared with the earlier demoting voting. But a factor to be added is that the Preservation Commission recently voted for a demolition delay on that steel driving man John Henry of the Boston Red Sox. John Henry was not successful despite have engaged a former Selectmen (no, not Steve Goldenberg, Esq. or Jeffrey Allen, Esq.), Joe Geller, Brookline’s longtime gardener with (or without?) a degree to make his case. The delay in demolition of up to a year may result in John Henry no longer providing special Red Sox privileges to Town officials as in the past. If John Henry is indeed a steel driving man, then a certain Brookline Police Commissioner might be deprived of choice seats for playoffs (for whom the BPD might provide escort – similar to Rudy Guiliani – to Fenway Park). Now how might that Police Commissioner, in his capacity as Selectman, vote on Dennis?