Wringing Out 2007: The Silent Whistle.
By Jim Conley • Dec 27th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Most of On Brookline’s 2007 coverage went to the penchant for secrecy and the hostility to public disclosure that exists at Brookline Town Hall. And in his series on Brookline town government’s (woeful) whistleblower policy, Archie Mazmanian chronicles the lengths town managers and the Clueless Five (i.e., the Brookline Selectmen) have gone to tamping down reports of abuse.
In fact, Archie’s read of the policy shows that town government has essentially crafted a whistleblower prevention plan by alerting potential reporters to the legal ramifications of making a false report (remember their interest in preventing false reports for later posts).
Read Archie’s series here and then ask yourself: Why would the Feds have an interest in the Brookline DPW? It’s because no one (with oversight responsibility) in town government has any interest at all.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
The whistle may be silent because the Whistleblower Policy adopted by the Selectmen is missing the pea, so that it only blows hot air. And since the Board blows hot air, there is a clash - call it “Municipal Warming.” I wrote this series with the idea that transparency leads to good governance, referring to the trinity of the open meeting laws, public records laws AND the whistle to keep everyone on their toes. The Town did adopt, finally, a Whistleblower Policy, but not within both the letter and the spirit of the law. At least it was a first step. It has now been about one year. I wonder if the Town will report on the results of the Whistleblower Policy? The stats are important in determining whether the Policy is working. Of course, the Town officials may point to the small number of implementations of the Policy. But this may reflect upon reality as is the case with the policy concerning the BPD as evidenced by the Arthur Conquest appeal that the Board of Selectmen sidestepped.
The series continuted beyond the municipal level to the Attorney General’s Office, which has enforcement responibility. Alas, no response. Then the state, county and municipal employees were impleaded to bring about enforcement. But no luck. So then the MA House and Senate was impleaded. Still no response. So I guess that the Commonwealth is entrenched in protecting fraud, corruption and incompetence when public funds are involved. Take a look at the NYTimes editorial today on the federal whistleblower statutes. The MA whistleblower statute is mild in comparison. So perhaps it is the MA way: no snitching by public employees will be tolerated. But is this fair to taxpayers?
So the problem seems to be from the top down. With the current news about the “BIG DIG,” I wonder if a few whistle tunes might have resulted in less of an expense to the taxpayers? Gov. Patrick, Attorney General Coakley, the MA House and Senate, pay attention: work while we whistle. What do you have to hide?
Perhaps it was the threat of the sound of the “Silent Whistel” that led to the public disclosure in Lt. Burke’s October 10, 2007, internal audit report on the Town Hall Brawl of the relationship of Sgt. Campbell with former ZBA member Lawrence Kaplan. The haunting question is WHEN did such information surface that such public disclosure was compelled? And WHO initially disclosed such information and to WHOM? Between the occurrence of the Town Hall Brawl on the evening of May 24, 2007 and October 10, 2007, some 4 1/2 months, WHO shared this secret, besides Campbell, Kaplan and Officer Ford? WHEN did each of the Selectmen become aware? Town Administrator? Town Counsel? Associate Town Counsels? Chief O’Leary? Was there a public disclosure of the relationship PRIOR to October 10th? Or might there have been a “Silent Whistle” blown from within the BPD itself? Did Officer Ford share this secret with anyone after first hearing it on the elevator ride with Sgt. Campbell from the sixth floor to the lobby of Town Hall on May 24th? Pres. Nixon’s Watergate scandal gave rise to the pertinent question during the U.S. Senate investigation asked by Republican Senator Baker: “What did you know and when did you know it?”