Flooding getting worser and worser

While watching out my picture window to the East to see if any part of Clinton remains above water, I got this alert from the National Weather Service:

FLOODING WILL BE AT LEAST AS WORSE AS IT WAS 2 WEEKS AGO. THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROLONGED PERIOD OF URBAN AND SMALL STREAM FLOODING FROM THIS AFTERNOON...LASTING WELL INTO TUESDAY MORNING.

Maybe we ought to start requiring our meteorologists to get an English minor English minors minors in English along with their degree degrees.

"It is already pouring over the spillway."

Today's back of the hand is delivered by State Representative Harold Naughton. An article about the flooding in Clinton and Lancaster included this exchange between Naughton and Lancaster Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco, where Naughton calls Pacheco on the obvious:

[Naughton] said the Wachusett Reservoir was full to overflowing with water pouring over its spillway and down toward the Nashua River.

Flooding problems were also being dealt with in Lancaster and Westminster. Route 117 in the Bolton Flats area, a normally flood prone area, was closed from Route 70 to Bolton. Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco said his concern is that the situation could get worse if water has to be released.

“They don't have to release it,” Mr. Naughton said. “It is already pouring over the spillway.”

Hee!

To be fair, Naughton probably didn't deliver the retort in person. If he did, then good for him for restating the obvious. If not, then kudos to Karen Nugent for arranging the story in such a way that it looks like a smackdown.

Is Clinton sex offender central?

I don't think so, but in a comment to the Item regarding a proposed bylaw to restrict where sex offenders can live, Police Chief Mark Laverdure made this stunning claim:

Laverdure said town safety officials had toyed with the idea in the past of writing a bylaw restricting where Level 3 sex offenders could live, based on their proximity to children, but some of those bylaws have been thrown out in other communities.

“Some bylaws, like you can’t live within 150 yards of a school or playground, will generally be approved. But anything too restrictive is not legal,” Laverdure said. “The purpose is to make people aware. Everyone should know that these people are out there. But for every one who is registered, there are probably 50 who are not.” 

What? The article notes that there are five registered level 3 sex offenders in Clinton. By Chief Laverdure's math, there are actually 250 or so serious sex offenders in Clinton. That would be nearly two percent of the entire town's population.

I hope Chief Laverdure was just being inartful. I don't think he means that there are 245 level 3 sex offenders in Clinton who are unregistered. And I hope he's not suggesting that fully two of every 100 residents is a rapist who has continued without apprehension. 

I think he's trying to make the point that everyone needs to be vigilant about the people around them, but boy, that is a damning way to do it.

So this is what the Item calls good news...

In today's Clinton Item, I came across a column asking whether the Apocalypse was near:

Recent events may draw one’s attention to the two apocalyptic prophecies from the biblical Book of Revelation: the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse (apocalypse being the ultimate extermination of mankind) and the sixth prophetic seal of Revelation, which predicts a great earthquake. (Source: Revelation 6).

The Book of Revelation explains that the Fourth Horseman brings with him death by disease and wild animals. While neither of these are particularly new phenomena, they have each made very recent headlines (Source: Revelation 6)...

The column then goes on to outline all of the horrific tragedies of the last couple of months, from the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile to the death of a Sea World trainer at the hands (flippers?) of a killer whale (seriously, this is the example of "death by wild animals.") It concludes:

So conclusively I leave you, the reader, with this final question: Are the seals of Revelation being broken? Are the Horsemen riding? Is the world coming to an impending end?

Or is this all just coincidence?

The kicker for me...note the title of the author:

Vanessa Murray is the calendar and Good News editor for The Item.

The Good News editor? I'd hate to see what the Bad News editor would come up with...

Convicts who torched "Mary's House" finally put away

Two arsonists from Clinton--whose torching spree culminated in the destruction of Sterling's most famous historical site--have been found guilty of setting fires from Sterling to Florida, Mass. and are headed to the big house for 15 years:

WORCESTER — Two Clinton men were sentenced to state prison yesterday for a 2007 arson spree from Central Massachusetts to the western end of the state that the judge called “random, reckless and unnerved acts of evil.”

Saying they acted with a “sense of impunity” and a total disregard for the consequences of their actions, Judge John S. McCann sentenced John Rousseau [at right] and Michael P. Dreslinski [far right] to 14-1/2 years to 15 years and a day in state prison with 30 years of probation that will begin immediately and keep the two longtime friends, both 30 years old, under the court’s supervision until they reach age 60....

The first of the two local fires destroyed the 18th century homestead of Mary Elizabeth Sawyer, the so-called “Mary Had a Little Lamb House,” at 108 Maple St., Sterling, which was on the National Register of Historic Places.

The fire two summers ago was a really big deal in our neighborhood. The Sawyer House is less than a mile from our home, and the blaze shook up some neighbors who have been living on the hill for decades. Apparently there had been a series of barn fires in the area in the late 1970s, including one barn in our neighborhood that was torched. At least one of our elderly neighbors was fearful that the same thing was happening again.

I guess in some ways the same thing was happening, but at least this burning spree was spread out over the whole state, and not centered in one terrified community.

A real shame in all of this is that one wonders if the destruction could have been prevented. I guess it's typical whenever a serial criminal is finally put away to wonder if law enforcement could have done more. Typical or not, I'll ask the question anyway. Why couldn't these two have been put away before it got to this?

At sentencing yesterday, Judge McCann noted that Rousseau and Dreslinski had a long criminal history, going back to their teen years:

Noting that both defendants had adult criminal records dating back to 1996 that included breaking and entering convictions and arson-related crimes, Judge McCann said neither had shown “a propensity for rehabilitation.”

The judge said in a sentencing memorandum, “Their swath of destruction has grown wider each year and brought us to the present.”

He called the setting of the fires two years ago “random, reckless and unnerved acts of evil evolving over a one-month period of time.” He said the crimes jeopardized the lives of the property owners, their neighbors, firefighters and, in the case of the Florida fire, railroad workers whose communication system was temporarily shut down.

The record is full of missed opportunities. In 2003, Rousseau admitted to police that he had set a series of fires around Clinton that fall. At his trial, the confessions were thrown out and the charges were eventually dropped. Looking back at some of the stories from the trial, the similarities between the 2007 fires and the 2003 fires is stark:

Rousseau, 26, is accused of setting four fires in abandoned buildings as well as in a Dumpster behind High Street. There were no injuries in any of the fires. Rousseau is also charged with impersonating a police officer and four counts of breaking and entering in the night to commit a felony after he allegedly hacked into police radio frequencies and pretended to be an officer. He also allegedly hacked into the CSX railroad frequency and reported false bomb threats and explosions on the tracks in Clinton. He is currently living at his Wilson Street home monitored by an electronic bracelet.

The case was investigated for months by local and state police as well as the state fire marshal's office before the charges were made in November 2003.

Fires in abandoned buildings? Check. Hacking into railroad radio frequencies? Check. Corroborating with Dreslinski? Check. Once the charges in the 2003 fires were finally dropped, the Times and Courier wrapped up the story with a timeline of Rousseau's and Dresinski's exploits, starting with the vandalization of a Bolton school with a swastika.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the end. After briefly flirting with a run for Clinton selectman, Rousseau teamed up with Dreslinski to set fire to buildings in Florida and Greenfield in late July, 2007. Even though the state police had fitted Dreslinski's truck with a GPS and knew he and Rousseau had been in the July fires, they did not arrest the pair until two weeks later, after they had torched the Sawyer house and a barn in Holden. It's too bad that the state couldn't have pulled together the evidence on the July fires in time to stop them from burning again.

For that matter, it's a shame that the authorities couldn't have been just a little more careful when this happened six years ago. I understand that the job of police and prosecutors is tough--certainly a lot tougher than my job. For the sake of our liberties, they have to be nearly perfect when it comes to locking someone up. Perfections is too much to ask of anyone, but a little perfection here would have gone a long way.

At least now there won't be a next time...until 2024 anyway.

Clinton turns to bullying -- again

A couple of years ago, when Clinton and Sterling were in dispute over the fate of the Wekepeke reservoirs, a member of the Clinton Board of Selectmen finally had it to here with Sterling and tried to bully one of our selectmen by dismissing the town as full of lay-abouts with nothing better to do than to harass poor old Clinton.

Now Clinton’s long-running dispute with Lancaster over the Clinton Fish and Game rifle range is heating up again, and once again Clinton has had enough of its neighbors. This time, not only is one of its selectmen resorting to name-calling, but the police chief is threatening to stop or reduce mutual aid to Lancaster. First, Selectman Bill Connolly:

Selectman William F. Connolly Jr., a proponent of keeping the range for target shooting and for police use, is a former member of the Fish and Game Association who has battled Lancaster officials about its use, and tried to work out an agreement to satisfy both sides.

Mr. Connolly said although approval for police was made last year before he was elected to the board in May, he was under the impression all involved had no problem with police certification shooting, including residents near the range...

“Little Napoleon [Lancaster Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco] may think he can tell the Lancaster Board of Selectmen what to do, but he’s not going to tell the Clinton Board of Selectmen what to do,” Mr. Connolly said.

My guess is that Selectman Connolly is exasperated that Lancaster has gone back on what he thought was an agreement to allow the Clinton police to use the range. Frankly, I would be miffed too if the rules had changed out from underneath me. But deriding the administrator of a neighboring town as “Little Napoleon” is rarely a successful negotiating tactic. I can’t imagine that derision will help bring the two towns back into agreement.

(For his part, Pacheco doesn't have a reputation for professional language when it comes to negotiating agreements either. He has likened his own town's police union to "pigs in the mud.")

But more troubling is the implication that Clinton police might not be so willing to help Lancaster out with its public safety needs if they don’t get what the want from the negotiations.”

Chief Laverdure said he is particularly miffed because the stop order has caused bad feelings in the two towns after years of cooperation between the Lancaster and Clinton police departments, which has included using the Clinton police lockup for Lancaster prisoners, and assisting Lancaster with police calls.

Just last week, he said, six Clinton officers helped two Lancaster officers at a break-in on South Meadow Road in Lancaster, near the range, in which the alleged robber was still in the house.

“We combed the woods, we identified a suspect — and it’s a dangerous guy, and he’s still out there. We spent 20 hours on that case. I’ll be reluctant to do that again,” Chief Laverdure said.

It is outrageous for the police chief in one town to threaten to withhold aid to a neighboring community because of a political dispute between the boards of selectmen in the two towns. I guess it speaks to a certain naivete on my part, but I would hope that our police would stay out of public policy disputes. I believe the motto is “To serve and protect,” not “To serve and protect unless your town administrator pisses us off.”

Let’s turn it around for a minute. Would it have been appropriate during the Wekepeke dispute for the Sterling Police or Fire Department to come out and say “Well, since Clinton hasn’t repaired the dams up there, we can’t help out if Clinton calls for help; we need to make sure we are ready if one of those dams should blow.”? Absolutely not. In fact, it would have been offensive.

Just because Clinton is the big dog in the region doesn’t mean it should also be the big bully. It didn’t get them anywhere in the Wekepeke dispute and it likely won’t help out here either.

Sterling's Gettens to oppose Naughton in 2010. Why, and why now?

At the highest levels of our political culture it’s not unusual for a campaign cycle to begin long before election day. For instance, the first credible candidates for the 2008 presidential election announced in late-2006 and the first primary debates were held early in 2007...almost two years before President Obama was ultimately elected.

For better or for worse, the trend toward extended campaigns has trickled all the way down to the State Legislature’s 12th Worcester District, where Sterling resident James Gettens has announced his intention to run against Rep. Hank Naughton in 2010.

I know Gettens from the fight between Clinton and Sterling (or more accurately, a three-way battle between Clinton, the Sterling selectmen, and the people of Sterling) over the potential sale of water from the Wekepeke Reservoirs. As I have written a number of times I agreed with Gettens’s position that the commercial sale of the water would be illegal. I even posted a number of his opinions and letters on this blog.

More recently, both Gettens and I spoke at town meeting in favor of Sterling taking the first step toward a five-person Board of Selectmen. On the other hand, we have also been on opposite sides of some town issues: at the May town meeting I spoke strongly in favor of spending $52,000 to help develop the Sterling Greenery Park, a proposal that Gettens vigorously opposed.

Having said that, I am a strong supporter of Rep. Naughton and I contributed both time and money to his most recent house campaign. I believe he serves with the district’s best interests in mind, and expect to strongly support him again in 2010.

The announcement of Gettens’s candidacy begs a couple of questions, some which have been answered but many of which haven’t.

1. Why is Gettens running for the house? From the article in the Times and Courier:

Topics Gettens said he hopes to address if elected include limiting salaries to high-ranking state officials, bringing the income tax rate back to 5 percent and working to tighten the expenses of the state’s mandatory health care policy….

Gettens criticized Democrats in state office, stating, “the spending practices of the Democrats in control of the House and Senate are out of control, and I hope to help change this. I intend to speak out for the individual taxpayers in the district. The people who own businesses and the entrepreneurs — the people who have been exploited by entrenched government organizations.”

“It took 200 years of state history for the budget to go from zero dollars to $12.8 billion, a mark which was reached in 1988-89. The Democrats have been in control since 1988-89, and the Democrats, through wasteful government spending, have more than doubled this $12.8 billion budget in this time,” said Gettens.

A couple of things I find interesting here…first, Gettens proclaims his support for rolling back the income tax to 5%, not for repealing it altogether, which was the goal of the recent ballot question. The difference between 5% and 5.3% is largely symbolic. For a worker making $52,000 a year, a reduction of 0.3% would put $3.00 per week back in her paycheck. And Naughton will argue—as he did in a forum we held before the last election—that the current law already has triggers that would reduce the tax rate based on the state’s revenues.

(As an aside…if the legislature had set a scale that would slide up to 5.95% when revenues are down, and down to 5% when revenues are up—instead of just a downward scale—I wonder if sales taxes, alcohol taxes, meals taxes, etc. would have been necessary.)

Secondly, he wants to “tighten the expenses” of the health care plan. Not repeal it, or cut services, or even change the way the plan works, just tighten expenses. I wonder how such a progressive position on universal health care plays with the more conservative Republicans out there.

And the argument that the budget has doubled since 1988 is a straw man. Converting 1988 dollars into 2009 dollars, $12.8 billion in 1988 would be worth $23.14 billion today. According to population estimates, Massachusetts has grown by 7.6% since the 1990 census. Using 2009 dollars, if we increase the budget by 7.6% to keep up with the growth, we end up with a total of $24.9 billion. So of course the budget has doubled, it would take $24.9 billion just to provide the exact same services per capita as we did in 1988.

2. What are Gettens’ positions on social issues? Right now it appears that the election will be fought on economic grounds, but who knows what will happen between now and 2010. Earlier this week, Attorney General Martha Coakley filed suit to have portions of the Defense of Marriage Act stricken as it pertains to same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. Will this still be an issue in 2010? Gay marriage opponents have indicated that they may again try to petition for a constitutional amendment to repeal that part of the law. Would Gettens vote to support or oppose that effort? Both Gettens and Naughton serve in the Army Reserves. What are their positions on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?” Does the Republican support or oppose casino gambling and/or slot parlors in soon-to-be-former dog tracks?

3. Why announce the candidacy so early in the cycle? Was it meant to be a stake out a position to keep other Republicans out of the race? Is it an attempt to get an early jump on raising money (although a check on the Office of Campaign and Political Finance website suggests that Gettens has not yet formed a campaign committee to receive contributions)?

4. Why was the rollout so limited? The only article about Gettens’ candidacy to date is the one on the Times and Courier. There hasn’t been any announcement of it in the other newspapers that serve the region (The Landmark, the Clinton Item, the Telegram and Gazette, the Banner, or the Villager). There has been no posting or discussion on Red Mass Group or the Worcester County Republican Club’s blog. It seems that if a candidate is going to make an announcement he would try to reach as many voters, supporters, and potential donors as possible.

5. What will Lew Evangelidis do? On the one hand, Evangelidis is a Republican and the party is always desperate for fellow Republicans to run for office. On the other hand, I perceive that Lew and Hank are fairly close and work pretty well together on issues that affect the neighboring districts. Will Evangelidis support Gettens enthusiastically and campaign with him? Will he support him in name but not do any heavy lifting? Or will Lew sit it out entirely, effectively telegraphing his support for Naughton by staying on the sidelines?

6. How will Sterling’s town leadership respond? On the surface, having a Sterling resident run for state rep should be a good thing. But Gettens has sparred with the Board of Selectmen on a number of occasions, many times in public forums or at town meeting. Historically, two of the three members of the board have been financial contributors to Republicans running for state office.

Both Dick Sheppard and Paul Suschyk gave money to Republican David Schnaider, the last Sterlingite to run for a seat in the legislature (Nice touch, by the way, for Sushchyk to give $100.00 to David Schnaider before his 2004 senate race against Democrat Bob Antonioni and then give $150.00 to Antonioni a year later). And both have given to Evangelidis and state level Republicans to the tune of over $2,100 combined the last six years. Will they also support Gettens? Or have the disputes between Gettens and the board become too personal for these longtime Selectmen to support him?

(Newly elected selectman Russ Philpot is not listed in the OCPF database as having contributed to any candidates).

7. And finally, will the Republican candidate for Governor have any coattails, or will he follow the Romney-esque path of running for himself, completely disregarding the infrastructure of the sate party as a whole?

A lot of things to ponder. For better or for worse, we have a long 16 months of pondering to go.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Election 2010 State House Harold Naughton James Gettens

House budget part 3: When vote trading may be the right thing

Third in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle.

When the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night--bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%--Speaker Robert DeLeo was forced to scramble to put together 107 votes in an effort to build a majority large enough to override Governor Patrick’s threatened veto. Rep. Dennis Rosa of Leominster told the Telegram & Gazette the House leadership was working hard to get votes changed:

Freshman Rep. Dennis A. Rosa, D-Leominster, said he was asked to back the speaker’s tax plan repeatedly throughout the day, but held his ground to vote against it.

“My arm got twisted two or three times yesterday, but politely twisted,” he said. “It was fine with me. They made me a sales pitch and I made my case that I had to represent my district and stand up for my people,” Mr. Rosa said.

“Leadership wasn’t happy with it but I think they understand my decision.”

In my two earlier posts I was critical of Worcester Rep. Vincent Pedone for changing his vote for what appear to be less-than courageous reasons. But would it be different if a representative changed his vote in return for a project or funding that was vital to his community?

For instance, take the situation that may have faced Rep. Harold Naughton of Clinton. (And I want to make it clear here that this is a completely hypothetical situation. Not only do I not know if Naughton changed his vote from No to Yes, I don’t have any idea why he would have made a change if he did. I’m presenting this just for the sake of argument.) When the budget was first released a couple of weeks ago, Clinton was looking at taking a significant hit in local aid. Not only was the town facing the 32% cut in local aid that all cities and town are facing, but Clinton also faced the loss of an additional $500,000 in aid, as explained by the Times and Courier:

Half that cut comes via the elimination of an annual state payment of $500,000 to operate the wastewater treatment plant on High Street, Town Administrator Michael Ward said Tuesday. State Rep. Harold Naughton Jr., D-Clinton, vowed to fight the cut.

“I feel that’s not just a statutory obligation, but a moral obligation of the commonwealth,” Naughton said. “This will be my priority. Every resource that I have [will be brought] to the fight.”

The payment enables the town to pay its $500,000 annual bill to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which operates the sewer plant and the Wachusett Reservoir. Naughton said the payment is intended as compensation for the state taking Clinton land to build the reservoir in the 1890s and 1900s....

The article goes on to suggest that Naughton had not yet committed to raising the sales tax:

“I think we’ll see some proposals for taxes,” Naughton said. “I think you’ll see debate on a raise in the sales tax, I think you’ll see us return to debate on the statewide meals and hotel tax...I still need to listen to some debate and be convinced one way or the other.”

So in our scenario, we know that there is something that Naughton is willing to “use every resource” to fight for, and that he had not publicly committed to voting for a sales tax. Fast forward to Monday. In the Democratic caucus, Naughton does not commit to being one of the 81 yes votes Speaker DeLeo needs to pass the bill. Suddenly, the Governor’s letter hits everyone’s e-mail box and DeLeo starts to scramble to pick up an additional 26 votes to ensure a veto-proof majority.

If DeLeo heads down to Naughton’s office or pulls him aside on the floor of the house and asks “what will it take to get you to join us on the sales tax?” the answer is… “Put the $500,000 for the MWRA treatment plant back into the budget and I’ll vote with you.”

Again, I’ve made the DeLeo-Naughton scenario up in my head, so it may not have happened that way. But if it did, would that be reason enough to change a vote? Is raising the sales tax worth the additional $500,000 in local aid for Clinton?

I don’t know. I expect that this is one of the toughest parts of being a state rep or senator: how do you balance what you think is best for the state against what you think is best for your district? I hoped that Naughton would vote against the sales tax, but perhaps he had reasons other than tax philosophy to do so.

Or maybe he didn’t. Either way, it will be interesting to see if Clinton ends up with the $500,000 after all, and how much more Naughton will have to fight to get it.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Harold Naughton Leominster Dennis Rosa State House Budget Deval Patrick

Wekepeke: Here we go again

I suppose it was inevitable. After a summer and fall or relative peace surrounding the Wekepeke Reservoir, Clinton Selectman Anthony Fiorentino has decided that it might be time to revisit the issue again. From this week’s Times and Courier:

Clinton - Anthony Fiorentino remains concerned with how Sterling views the Wekepeke lands, even as that town’s selectmen chairman says his constituents want action taken sooner rather than later.

“We’re left with trying to get a deal with the town of Sterling to try and collaborate and trying to maintain that property as it should be,” said Fiorentino, a Clinton selectman, citing Gov. Deval Patrick’s 2008 mid-year veto* of $250,000 in state money earmarked to repair Wekepeke dams. The state had earlier mandated that Clinton repair the dams, an estimated $1 million job.

Fiorentino said Tuesday he remains in favor of exploring new ways to generate revenue on the 564-acre Wekepeke parcel, owned by Clinton but largely located within the town of Sterling.

“I look at water as a renewable resource. The Wekepeke is something that we need to explore and not forget about,” he said, adding, “The town of Sterling has expressed interest in that water. The town of Clinton needs to protect that. It should be something we actively consider.”

This issue is never going to go away as long as the leaders of Clinton and Sterling see the water on that land as a money-making venture. Every last bit of “renewable resource” has not been placed on this earth so that it can be exploited and sold to bridge the budget gaps. It’s OK for a piece of property to be left dormant. Open space is a good thing.

It’s bad enough that some of the leadership in Clinton see the Wekepeke Reservoir and aquifer as nothing more than a money maker. But the Sterling Selectmen have been little better in voicing their opposition to Clinton’s plan. Long after Clinton rejected Nestle’s initial bid the Sterling selectmen finally decided that yeah, well, maybe selling the water wasn’t such a great idea so we’ll oppose it.

Opposing the plan when it was still a going question would have been the responsible thing to do, but Sterling’s selectmen dragged their feet to see what Sterling could get out of the deal, only to finally oppose it after a decision had been made and after months of near-unanimous opposition from those in town who voiced an opinion.

But when it comes to deciding what to do with the land, the Sterling selectmen have been all over the place. I don’t blame Fiorentino for thinking Sterling has designs on the reservoir, because this board of selectmen has tossed out a number of ideas on what to do with it. They’ve talked about hydro-electric power, forestry management (i.e., logging), and leaving it alone among other ideas. The fact that the Sterling selectmen can’t come up with their own proposal and stick to it understandably leads to distrust.

Ultimately, the only option that will gain widespread support in Sterling is to keep the land as it is and to upkeep the dams. No commercial development, period. Earlier in the year the Sterling selectmen mused about what it would take to buy the land. My proposal at the time was to purchase the land from Clinton for the same amount Clinton would have received had it contracted with Nestle, minus the $1.5 million to repair the dams, payable over the terms of Nestle’s original proposal. But I and others would strongly oppose even that plan if Sterling were to try to turn around and develop it.

The first step to solving the problem is for the Sterling Selectmen to strengthen their opposition to Nestle by extending it to all commercial and revenue generating activities. The parcel has been a passive, open space for over 40 years. It should stay that way.

*As an aside, the $250,000 was not cut by the governor’s veto, but as part of a round of Section 9C cuts. State law mandates that the governor reduce the budget in an effort to balance it if revenues come in below budget. A veto can be overridden, a 9C cut cannot. The governor did not veto the earmark when it was passed as part of the FY2009 budget.

July 3: Naughton's Wekepeke earmark in final budget
June 19: Write the state house to support the Wekepeke
June 19: Clinton signs Wekepeke restriction. Now what?
May 2: Naughton secures funds for the Wekepeke
April 29: Might the Wekepeke restriction have teeth after all?
April 25: What would Sterling accept at the Wekepeke?
April 11: What does the Wekepeke Restriction actually say?
April 11: Clinton does the right thing
April 9: Sterling should offer to buy Wekepeke at Nestle's price
April 6: Sterling selectmen to oppose Wekepeke plan, but to what extent?
April 4: Vermont looking to restrict Wekepeke-style projects
March 27: This can't be helpful
March 25: Tough decision ahead for Clinton
March 21: Nestle's proposal could change everything
March 21: Nestle nominated for "Corporate Hall of Shame"
March 19: Sterling Selectmen disappoint at Wekepeke forum
March 16: Sterling should oppose Nestle...the right way

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Nestle Wekepeke

T&G Reporter still posting on controversial message board

Yesterday, I noted that Telegram and Gazette reporter Karen Nugent had been assigned to write a story about charges filed with the Worcester County DA and the Attorney General that members of the clintonmass.us discussion forum had threatened opponents of the rifle range, yet she did not disclose in the article that she is a poster on the web site.

In my post from yesterday, I questioned whether or not it was a conflict of interest for Nugent to report on the controversy since she was a member of the message board and had been an active poster. Let me add another question to yesterday's list: Should a reporter who has reported on a message board of which she is a member joke about the article with members of the board...including one who is a subject of the story...after it has been published?

In the article, which reported that members if the web forum were alleged to "have engaged in stalking, gay bashing, slander, sexual harassment and other civil rights violations," Nugent refers to complaints against William Connolly, Jr. and quotes his response. She also notes that Connolly is also a poster at the site. Yesterday, after the article had been published, Connolly posted the following as part of a comment in a thread discussing the complaint:

I think Karen has lost her edge. She left out all the really good stuff. Where was the "White Supremacist Gun Hate" stuff. She left out the "rugmuncher=vaginal oral sex" story line too. No kidding they really did send that stuff to the AG's office. Why wasn't it in the story too?

Reporter Nugent replied:

Really, Bill...You expect the editors to let "rug muncher" get in the paper? (I had to explain to one of them what it means!)

Should the reporter be discussing "rug munchers" with one of the subjects of an article about a discussion forum where gay bashing is alleged to have occurred, on the forum in question?

Tags: Clinton Massachusetts Telegram and Gazette

Conflict at T&G? Message board poster reports on complaints against message board

This morning, Karen Nugent of the Telegram and Gazette reported on a complaint lodged by a group of citizens--including two selectmen--against the webmaster and members of the clintonmass.us message board, alleging that the members have threatened and intimidated citizens opposed to the rifle range on the Lancaster-Clinton line.

There is one significant problem with the article: no where does Nugent mention that she is also a member of the message board, having logged 59 posts at the site and posting a comment as recently as November 7.

Without commenting on the issue (OK, one small comment...while I do not condone the attacks I have read at that site, the prospect that someone would be investigated based on anonymous message board posts is chilling), there are a couple of questions that need to be answered:

• Did Karen Nugent inform her editors before reporting the story that she is a member of the site that is being investigated by the DA and the Attorney General?
• If not, did she have a duty to disclose that to her editors?
• If so, should her editors have kept her on the story, despite the appearance of a conflict of interest?
• And then, should they have included a disclaimer that the reporter was a member of the site being investigated?

I am not suggesting that Karen Nugent reported the story poorly, or even that she has engaged in the specific discussions that the folks who lodged the complaint found so offensive. But I do think she and the Telegram have an obligation to either steer the story to a reporter not affiliated with the site, or at the least to disclose in her reporting that she is a member of the message board.

Tags: Clinton Massachusetts Telegram and Gazette

Kerrigan's strategy comes into focus

When he first announced his candidacy for State Representative, I questioned whether or not Steve Kerrigan’s campaign was a Quixotic quest or shrewd politics. Well, yesterday’s news that incumbent Harold Naughton had applied for three court positions last year confirms that Kerrigan is shrewd; whether or not his quest will have been Quixotic will be answered at the polls on Tuesday. Here’s the story:

State Rep. Harold P. Naughton Jr. sought a judgeship and two clerk magistrate positions last year and embarked on his seventh re-election campaign in the spring with two of the judicial applications still pending.

The Clinton Democrat, a lawyer who will face Stephen J. Kerrigan Tuesday in the Democratic primary for the 12th Worcester District seat, has denied rumors that he was interested in a district court clerk magistrate post.

But the Telegram & Gazette has obtained copies of documents submitted to the state Judicial Nominating Commission showing that Mr. Naughton applied for a Leominster District Court judge seat, which was filled in June by former Worcester lawyer Mark E. Noonan, and clerk magistrate posts in the Fitchburg and Uxbridge district courts. . . .

Mr. Kerrigan, 36, a former Lancaster selectman and aide to U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said his opponent “clearly has got to make a decision about what his priorities are.”

The leak of Naughton’s job applications is the “A-ha!” moment that I’ve been waiting for as I’ve been trying to figure out what Kerrigan has been up to. Looking back at the campaign as a whole, it’s clear to me that yesterday’s news is the culmination of a summer-long strategy to paint Naughton as uninterested and uncommitted. In a May 1 Telegram article announcing his candidacy, Kerrigan had this to say:

"I want to do this job," he said. "This has nothing to do with Hank (Naughton). When it comes right down to it, I just want to work in the Legislature. I have a desire to serve."

The article also included unsourced “rumors” about Naughton’s lack of desire and commitment:

Mr. Naughton yesterday denied rumors that he is in line for a district court magistrate post, passing it off as expected because he is a lawyer and former prosecutor, and because there are a few court magistrate positions open in Central Massachusetts.

"I've had several fundraisers, and there is one coming up on June 16. I am running for re-election," he said. "I look forward to the campaign, and I hope the people of the 12th District come forward once again to support me."

I can’t prove it, but there is little doubt in my mind that it was Kerrigan who planted the seed with reporter Karen Nugent regarding these “rumors.” I think he knew concretely that Naughton had applied for the three court jobs a year earlier. He innocuously reminds the reporter of the “rumors” and sets the hook for the rest of his campaign. (To be fair, he also set the hook with me. I have surmised that he is running to build a reputation so that he can win a special election if Naughton were to step down after the election, which means that I, too, have given credence to the rumors of Naughton’s job search. )

If you have been reading Kerrigan’s literature (and to his credit, I get something in the mail almost every week), his message is consistently about representing the people of the district at 100%. That is his entire platform. If he mentions issues at all, it is using very broad strokes. I am not sure that I have heard or read of a specific policy that he would propose or a specific position of Naughton’s that he opposes. Kerrigan did very well at the forum we hosted in July, but the one time he seemed at a loss for words was when I asked him what his first bill would be.

Last month, Kerrigan turned up the heat on Naughton just a little more when he mentioned that the representative had not voted on the final budget. Naughton missed the vote because he was on active duty with his Army reserve unit. I was critical of Kerrigan’s attack, but it was consistent with his “100%” theme.

Now comes the confirmation that Naughton applied for court positions over a year ago. Make no mistake that the Kerrigan campaign or one of its supporters leaked the job applications. The first clue is that the article was written not by Nugent, who is the regular Clinton reporter, but by Shaun Sutner, a writer who has covered statewide political issues. The Kerrigan campaign is savvy enough to make sure that the local stringers don’t screw it up, so the info was leaked to a writer who would know what to do with it and who has not written one story about this campaign the entire cycle.

It appears to me that the Kerrigan campaign has been planning on leaking this story at this time from day one. This story is the next to last brick in the wall that they have been constructing since jumping into the race in May. If I am correct, I would expect that Kerrigan has another mailing at the print press as we speak using this story as the hammer. The only thing the printer has been waiting for is the T&G masthead with the exact headline and a callout quote to plug into the blank space. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that tomorrow, Saturday or Monday the mailman will deliver one last Kerrigan flyer prominently featuring this story.

What is Naughton to do? Hit back on a couple of fronts. First, it appears that whoever released the information to the Kerrigan campaign or its supporters was at best being unethical and at worst breaking the law. In the list of instructions on the Joint Nominating Commission website, this stands out:

8. This application does not constitute a public record. For confidentiality reasons, once the application is filed with the JNC, applicants should not provide a copy of the application to other individuals. However, upon approval by the JNC, applications, including the confidential portion, are forwarded to the Governor for review. In addition, applicants should note that a portion of the application may be reviewed by the Chief Legal Counsel, the Joint Bar Committee as well as the Governor's Council.

Further, if it was a commissioner who leaked the info, he or she would be in violation of Executive Order 500:

1.5.4 Confidentiality: Except as otherwise may be necessary for purposes of conducting due diligence of an applicant's qualifications and during Commission meetings, each Commissioner shall keep confidential all information concerning any applicant, except that information which may reflect unfavorably on an applicant's suitability for judicial office shall be disclosed to the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall disclose any such information to the Commission and to investigators employed on behalf of the Commission for purposes of due diligence. No discussions, motions, opinions, votes or facts revealed during meetings of the Commission may be directly or indirectly disclosed by any Commissioner to any person other than another Commissioner in accordance with this Code of Conduct. Except as may be required to conduct due diligence, all substantive communications with applicants outside of meetings and interviews shall be conducted by the Chairperson or her designee.

Will Naughton accuse the Kerrigan campaign and its contacts on Beacon Hill of an unethical and possibly illegal breach of confidentiality? Maybe something like this: “Steve Kerrigan’s cabal of Boston lobbyists and Washington insiders will do anything, including releasing confidential records, to get him elected. Steve Kerrigan should condemn this breach of ethics and demand that his supporters in Boston come clean and reveal the source of their information.”

Naughton also ought to point out more forcefully that Kerrigan has mischaracterized his earlier denial of interest in a position. Back to today’s story:

“I’ve made my decision. That’s why I’m running for office,” Mr. Kerrigan said. “I certainly read that denial, that he’s never applied for these jobs, and that appears not to be the case.”

Mr. Naughton, who in 2006 initially supported Mr. Patrick’s primary opponent for governor, former Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, said also he was told not long after applying for the Leominster judgeship that he would not be appointed.

“I got a letter saying I wasn’t going to be considered for that,” he said.

The Clinton lawmaker, who also represents Boylston, Northboro and parts of Lancaster and Sterling, maintained that his assertion in a May 2 [sic] Telegram & Gazette story that he was not in line to be a clerk magistrate was accurate because he believed that the Fitchburg and Uxbridge jobs would not be filled by permanent appointments.

Perhaps this is a little too (Bill) Clintonian in the parsing of the words, but Naughton never denied that 10 months earlier he had applied for magistrate positions. He said that he was not “in line” for those positions. Based on the way the May 2 article was written, I don’t think Nugent ever asked him if he had applied. Here it is again:

Mr. Naughton yesterday denied rumors that he is in line for a district court magistrate post, passing it off as expected because he is a lawyer and former prosecutor, and because there are a few court magistrate positions open in Central Massachusetts.

Kerrigan cannot accurately claim that he “read that denial, that he’s never applied for these jobs” because Naughton has not denied applying for the position and looks like he has never been asked the question.

Even so, a candidate can only gain so much by playing defense, and Kerrigan is trying to put Naughton in a defensive position for the last week of the campaign. Will it be enough to overcome Naughton’s lead in fundraising and the advantages of incumbency? We’ve got a fun five days to find out.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Clinton Lancaster Sterling Harold Naughton Stephen Kerrigan

The $100,000 house race

The campaign finance reports are in, and for what has to be the first time ever, the candidates in the 12th Worcester District primary have raked in over $100,000 in their attempts to win the seat. Here are a few observations from my reading of the reports:

• The $102,482 Harold Naughton and Steve Kerrigan have combined to raise makes this primary the third richest in the state this cycle, behind only the races in the Fifth Essex and Fourth Plymouth districts. The two campaigns have combined to spend $82,855, which places them second in expenditures. Of those top three races, the 12th Worcester is the only two-man contest.
  
  
• Among contested races statewide, only Fifth Essex incumbent Anthony Verga has raised more money than Naughton's $62,841.
  
  
• Naughton has done much better in the district than Kerrigan has, outraising the challenger by more than eight-to-one. Kerrigan has only tapped 18 contributors for a total of $2,505 in the five towns (and $500 of that is Kerrigan's own money). By contrast, Naughton's report listed 200 local contributions.
  
  
• On the other hand, more than half of Kerrigan's nearly $40,000 has come from contributors living outside of Massachusetts. Over $14,000 came from the Washington, D.C. area. In comparison, Naughton snagged less than $900 from outside the state; of that, $424.50 came from the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.
  
  
• Of course, incumbency has it's privileges. Naughton pulled in over $11,000 from Political Action Committees and trade organizations and nearly $2,400 from fellow candidates and legislators in other districts. Kerrigan did not receive any money from these special interests.

What does it mean? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I'd say that the ability to only get 18 contributors from the district probably spells big trouble for Kerrigan. All the out of state money can buy a lot of mailings, but none of those contributors can vote. In a local primary, the people who come out and vote are the ones who are committed to their candidate; casual voters don't take the time. If Kerrigan hasn't been able to get his supporters and potential constituents to commit to his campaign financially, one wonders if he'll be able to get them to care enough to get out to the polls.

Below are the numbers:

              Harold Naughton           Stephen Kerrigan
              Contribution       Pct.   Contribution     Pct.
District        $21,825.19      34.7%      $2,505.00     6.3%
Rest of State   $38,287.00      60.9%     $14,750.00    37.2%
Out of State       $899.50       1.4%     $21,051.00    53.1%
Not Itemized     $1,830.00       2.9%      $1,335.00     3.4%

TOTAL           $62,841.69                $39,641.00
   
PAC             $11,250.00      17.9%          $0.00     0.0%
Candidate        $2,374.50       3.1%          $0.00     0.0%

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Clinton Lancaster Sterling Harold Naughton Stephen Kerrigan

100% committed or a step too far?

I’ve been wondering when challenger Steve Kerrigan would start taking it to Representative Hank Naughton in their primary contest. I guess the answer is "August 19."

Kerrigan has been beating Naughton in the mail and on the ground—I’ve received five or six fancy, designed brochures from Kerrigan compared to one misprinted postcard from Naughton, and Kerrigan leads 2-1 in visits to the homestead—but he hasn’t been either specific about his plans for the House or willing to contrast his vision of government with Naughton’s. It’s been my thought all along that a challenger can only get so far without making a direct contrast with the incumbent. In short, you have to knock the champ out.

But I figured that if Kerrigan started to draw contrasts with the incumbent, he’d do so around specific votes or issues, or even the old rumors that Naughton may be looking for greener pastures in the judiciary. I didn’t think he’d go there:

“I have a 100 percent commitment to serve, 24-7, and I’m not starting as a traditional freshman because I’ve had to deal with all the issues before,” Mr. Kerrigan said...

Mr. Kerrigan pointed out that Mr. Naughton, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which handles money, was absent on July 3, the day the $28 billion state budget was voted on.

Let me be more precise. I’m not surprised that Kerrigan is mentioning his “100 percent commitment” because this has been his one consistent overriding message. While he doesn’t say so directly, readers and listeners are left to infer that Kerrigan doesn’t think Naughton is as committed to being a representative as he should be. But I am surprised that Kerrigan would use a vote that Naughton missed while serving in the Army Reserves as evidence:

Mr. Naughton, 47, who joined the U.S. Army Reserves in 2003 and did an eight-month tour of duty in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, said yesterday he was on reserve training at the time of the vote.

“I filed my (yes) vote with the clerk, and everyone was aware of what my vote was,” he said.

I just can’t imagine why Kerrigan would pin Naughton down as being less than 100% because he spends a couple of weeks a year with the armed forces, but there you are. Perhaps the item was taken out of context—I tend to arch my eyebrows a little bit when a reporter relays an assertion this specific as a narrative rather than using a quote—or perhaps Kerrigan didn’t realize that Naughton was serving that week. I don’t know. But using one’s military service as a reason he should not be reelected is pretty risky business.

(For what it’s worth, the reason for Naughton’s absence should have been clear. On June 10, the Clinton Item reported that he would be sent on active duty to the United Nations and Fort Dix during the summer. I can also vouch for the representative. I emailed him of June 29 to start the process of scheduling our forum in Sterling and he replied on July 6, apologizing for the delay as he away from email on active duty.)

It will be interesting to see how the campaign sharpens over these last four weeks. Based on a couple of his answers at our forum last week, it sounded like Naughton was aware of the criticism that he is not “100 percent committed.” I wonder if using the Naughton’s military service as an example is taking that criticism a step too far.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Clinton Lancaster Sterling Harold Naughton Stephen Kerrigan

Rep. Harold Naughton forum rewind

Thursday night, the Sterling Democratic Town Committee hosted the third of a series of candidate events, a conversation with Rep. Harold Naughton, a candidate for reelection in the 12th Worcester District. As in the earlier forum with challenger Steve Kerrigan, I hosted the event and asked most of the questions.

Below is the first segment and links to the other segments. You can watch these as well as the video of our earlier State Senate debate on the Sterling DTC YouTube channel.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Clinton Lancaster Sterling Harold Naughton

Knuuttila's endorsement error

Last week, State Senate candidate Brian Knuuttila rolled out an impressive list of endorsements in a release to the local newspapers. The list included current and former state representatives, mayors, city councilmen, selectmen and other elected officials from across the district. It even included a couple of Republicans. But it turns out the list was both a little too impressive on the one hand, and not as impressive as it seems on the other. The Times and Courier took a closer look:

...somebody along the line at Knuuttila H.Q. made a bigger mistake, including Lancaster Democrat Stephen Kerrigan’s name in the press release.

Just one problem: Kerrigan hasn’t endorsed anyone in this race. But we had to call him to get that news, and the Kerrigan-for-Knuuttila press release was up there on our Wicked Local sites in Bolton, Clinton and Lancaster for a day before we corrected it...

...he also lists (as his original press release did before being edited) Mark “Ellworthy” as a Clinton selectman (the real Mark Elworthy, now a Finance Committee member, has been a former selectman for two years) and Esteban Mendoza as “Parks and Recreation Director” — a small quibble here, as Mendoza is chairman of the parks board, but not director of the department.

Knuuttila’s list of endorsements on his website also listed the Kerrigan error until it was corrected last evening (it now just shows a blank bullet point under the Lancaster heading). The Times and Courier couldn’t get anyone to explain on the record how the error was made—was there some sort of misunderstanding between the candidates? Just a clerical error?—but it was made. And it’s still out there. While the Times and Courier got it right before they went to press (although they had published the misinformation online), the Clinton Item listed the incorrect endorsement in their August 5 edition, even though it had been publicly debunked six days earlier.

The non-endorsement and the way it has played in the press might actually help Kerrigan in Clinton. While I doubt that too many voters make their minds up on the basis of endorsements, one might make the leap to one candidate in a race they don’t follow that closely if they perceive that candidate is aligned with one that they strongly support in a different race. Knuuttila has had his signs out in Clinton since February, and many of the Knuuttila houses are also displaying Kerrigan signs. If Knuuttila’s people think Kerrigan is on their side, it can only help.

Conversely, if a supporter of Jennifer Flanagan sees the error and wonders what the deal is with this Kerrigan guy, Kerrigan can point to the Times and Courier correction as proof that he isn’t taking sides in the race.

For what it’s worth, Flanagan’s endorsements are up on her web site and I haven’t heard of any disputes to the...hey! Why aren’t I on the list?

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State Senate Sterling Clinton Lancaster Flanagan Knuuttila

Steve Kerrigan forum rewind

Thursday night, the Sterling Democratic Town Committee hosted the second of a series of candidate events, a conversation with Steve Kerrigan, a candidate for state representative in the 12th Worcester District. I ended up "hosting" the events and asking most of the questions. As such, until I get a chance to really watch the video I can't say one way or the other what I thought of Kerrigan's take on the issues.

I'll probably get the chance over the next few days, as I've loaded the segments to YouTube. Below is the first segment and links to the other segments. You can watch these as well as the video of our earlier State Senate debate on the Sterling DTC YouTube channel.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Clinton Lancaster Sterling Kerrigan

State Rep. Candidate Stephen Kerrigan in Sterling Thursday

If you have even the remotest interest in the issues facing our communities and the commonwealth as a whole, you need to get down to the First Church in Sterling Thursday night at 6:30 to take part in a discussion with Steve Kerrigan, candidates for state representative.

Bring friends, loved ones, supporters, enemies, whoever. This will be an open forum, so if you or someone you know have some issue that is near and dear to your heart, come on down and ask the candidates what they think about it.

Here is the official release:

The Sterling Democratic Town Committee will host a forum with Stephen Kerrigan, Democratic candidate for state representative, on Thursday, July 24 at 6:30 p.m. at the First Church in Sterling, 6 Meetinghouse Hill Road, on the Sterling Town Common. The event is open to the public.

Kerrigan, who was formerly a selectman in Lancaster and has served on the staffs of Senator Edward Kennedy and Attorney General Tom Reilly, will discuss the issues facing the 12th Worcester district and answer questions from voters.

Kerrigan is running in the Democratic primary against Representative Harold Naughton, who is seeking reelection. The winner of the September 16 primary is expected to be unopposed in the general election.

The 12th Worcester district includes the towns of Boylston, Clinton, Northborough, and parts of Lancaster and Sterling.

For more information, visit the Sterling Democratic Committee on the Internet at www.sterlingdems.org.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State House Lancaster Sterling Clinton

Naughton's Wekepeke earmark in final budget

Thanks to Representative Hank Naughton, Senator Steven Brewer and anyone who lobbied on its behalf, Naughton's $250,000 proposal to help with dam repairs and other upkeep at the Wekepeke survived the conference committee and will be headed to the governor's desk.

The only remaining hurdle is the governor's line item veto. Unless Governor Patrick strikes the line from the final budget and the legislature sustains his veto, the Department of Conservation and Recreation will have the money to spend. Here's the earmark (page 53 of the budget):

...provided further, that not less than $250,000 shall be expended for the purpose of aquatic management for the Wekepeke Reservoir in the town of Sterling

In the last two weeks, Clinton has agreed to the Conservation Restriction on the property and the state has come through with money to help maintain the property. After a lot of discussion and even a few hurt feelings, the Wekepeke land remains free from commercialization and a public resource for the communities of Sterling and Clinton.

Previous coverage of the Wekepeke:
June 19: Write the state house to support the Wekepeke
June 19: Clinton signs Wekepeke restriction. Now what?
May 2: Naughton secures funds for the Wekepeke
April 29: Might the Wekepeke restriction have teeth after all?
April 25: What would Sterling accept at the Wekepeke?
April 11: What does the Wekepeke Restriction actually say?
April 11: Clinton does the right thing
April 9: Sterling should offer to buy Wekepeke at Nestle's price
April 6: Sterling selectmen to oppose Wekepeke plan, but to what extent?
April 4: Vermont looking to restrict Wekepeke-style projects
March 27: This can't be helpful
March 25: Tough decision ahead for Clinton
March 21: Nestle's proposal could change everything
March 21: Nestle nominated for "Corporate Hall of Shame"
March 19: Sterling Selectmen disappoint at Wekepeke forum
March 16: Sterling should oppose Nestle...the right way

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Nestle Wekepeke

Zuper Zervice

I had a very nice customer experience this evening at a local pizza shop. I called Mr. Z's in Clinton to order a pair of medium meatball grinders and a couple of moments later, the phone rang. The caller ID said it was Mr. Z's calling back. I assumed that the cashier had inadvertently hit the redial button, but instead the caller said he realized that they were out of medium-sized grinder rolls and called to ask if I would like to order another size.

Now, that's service.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Mr. Z's