Editorial: Decisions

“Pittsfield Attorney Michael J. McCarthy should be a District Court judge,” reads the lead in a Berkshire Eagle story.

Yet, we have appointments by the Governor that we agree or disagree with, and we have the Governor’s Council, which ultimately decides. In this case, they choose not to appoint Mr. McCarthy. End of story.

Meanwhile, we have Michael Albano playing the grandstand role to abolish the council and filing suit to have Atty. McCarthy forced into a judgeship.

We don’t pretend to know all the drama of the backroom discussions and final decision. What we know is that we have a rule of law and the procedure was announced. Time to move on.

This sounds like the old story: You don’t like the message, you try to get rid of the messenger – The Gov. Council. It has been around since time one – let it stay and do its job of final appointment of judges and notary publics. This is what we call “oversight” of appointments.

****

Herein is a case where the Pittsfield School Committee Chairman Alfred E. “Alf” Barbalunga doesn’t like the attorney general citing of their process under the Open Meeting law of “improper deliberations” via email, which is a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law.

Barbalunga was quoted by the Berkshire Eagle that he doesn’t believe the action was a violation of the law and that the committee might consider an appeal of the AG’s determination. Good luck.

It is time that the school committee and other elected bodies read and understand the Open Meeting Laws.

Didn’t they as a prerequisite of taking office state that they read and understand the law?

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sclarsic concluded “the chair’s [Barbalunga] October 15, 2012 email constituted improper deliberation because it was sent to a quorum of the committee and solicited committee members’ opinions outside of a meeting.

Also, deliberations fall under  a response sent by one of the committee members, attaching suggested edits to a document.”

***

The Lee Selectmen fired Police Chief Joseph Buffis this week not on the basis of a federal indictment, but on the belief that he charged his cell phone use by himself and family to the town without permission. While the question remains on the validity of the federal complaint (See Story Page 1) his actions could have resulted in no suspension with pay or the alternative fired. It appears that the Lee select board and town manager are on the same page despite some town people pleading his case. Meanwhile, Mr. Buffis’s arraignment date in federal court in Springfield is pending.

Posted by George C. Jordan III on August 22, 2013. Filed under Editorials,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry