PUMMELIN' PAM MALUMPHY: Sunshine is OK with her, except, evidently, when it shines on her secret doings.

Pam Malumphy, the person whom the evidence STRONGLY suggests has filed an ethics complaint against Pittsfield Mayor Jimmy Ruberto and OCD director Deanna Ruffer, sent THE PLANET an frenzied e-mail in response to our repeated attempts to get her to say something, on the record, about our story. We present, unedited, her words:

You are lying.  You did not contact me via email  – you have my address, have always been able to successfully contact me, and my email has been working with absolutely no problem this week.  The address you used in your email to Ruberto, Ruffer, and me is absolutely incorrect, Dan, and you know it.   It is not the email you have ever used to contact me and given that I just emailed and received an auto-reply stating the account doesn’t exist, you must have known you were using an incorrect email.  You also have my cell phone number where you have also been able to consistently reach me and you did not call.    And beyond the bs of the email, why would you talk to the mayor first?  All of this could have been avoided with a simple call and me giving you a simple answer. But, no….that just wouldn’t be entertaining enough, now would it?
I will submit my response to the Gazette where I will, unfortunately for you, tell the truth and conclude this moronic tempest in a teapot that you created.  I will not respond to your site.  And, in the interim, you are more than welcomed to re-print this email in full on your website. END OF MALUMPHY’S E-MAIL TO THE PLANET

What can one say to such an over-emotional missive? As you can see, Malumphy has a bee not just in her bonnet but elsewhere, where it has apparently decided to reside. We don’t think the sun shines there, either. We’re sorry, but the big boys don’t fight in the arena this way. Pammy, woulded as she apparently is by this website’s dedication to the truth, has decided to play to “helpless female” role, and she is trying to paint THE PLANET and Jimmy Rubedrto and … well, we shall stop there … as the “men who think they know it all.”

Message to Pam: I thought you said you were ready to play in the big ring, by big boys’ rules? Apparently not.

THE PLANET responded to Pam that we did, will, and continue to tell the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about the circumstances surrounding our attempt to contact her for comment on the report that she has taken action against Ruberto. From her response, she says she never got that e-mail. We will take her at her word, and believe this is true, because of what seems to be an error in the automatic address features of our computer system.

She did learn of the matter, though, from this website, and immediately contacted us in unprintable words, including one of a personal nature directed at us. Our question, which we still pose, is why, then, did she not address the issue?

THE PLANET notices that in her anger, Malumphy avoids the question. She has now sent THE PLANET four e-mails in the past two days and has not once responded to our question. We answered each of those e-mails in a forthright and respectful manner.  Nonetheless, she has decided, for some reason unknown to us and known only to her, to continue with personal attacks on Yours Truly. That is her right, and , while we accept it [BBs against a battleship!], we can only shake our head at her approach. This is uncharacteristic of the Pam Malumphy we know. Perhaps there is something else going on with her that would explain the odd behavior.

She could have responded, the first time she heard about this, with a simple confirmation or denial. It would have prevented the tempest that she herself has created. Instead, Malumphy has decided to react in a way that will severely damage much of whatever political credibility she still retains after several losing campaigns. We’ve lost count; we think it’s three (at-large, state rep, and mayor).

For whatever reason, Malumphy has a dislike of Jim Ruberto that has spilled over into “personal” and that borders precipitously on the irrational. Instead of addressing this matter reasonably and with honesty, she has responded in a way that I would have thought uncharacteristic of her, that is, with hysteria.

Pam does her cause and her viability no good, nor does she do justice to her gender by acting as the stereotypical “emotional female” that deserves to be retired.

We can only speculate, since Malumphy chooses not to address the issue, as to why she has reacted this way. Speculations sometimes are useful, but here they aren’t, except to observe by way of footnote that perhaps she’s upset that THE PLANET’s sleuthing is so adept at finding out something that she wanted to keep hidden.

We understand why she would want to file an ethics complaint secretly, because that’s how the process works. However, we at THE PLANET also have an obligation on behalf of The Little Guy to report news like this. If it was not true, she’s now had four direct chances to tell us that. She has not done so. We can only conclude that what we currently report — that she has again gone after Jim Ruberto  — is true.

And it is news, if in fact she has filed the complaint. We believe she has because we have the information from a CLOSE friend. It’s news because it involved the mayor, the CEO of a city. It’s news because if what she’s alleging regarding the mayor is not true or even some picky thing that should be left alone, it harms every person in the city of Pittsfield. It does so because the mayor and other city staff must direct time, energy, and resources to reply to this — what shall we call it, take your pick — “investigation” or “harassment.” Yeah, “harrassment” seems like a good word here.

Malumphy has always spoke about her respect for the truth. She’s also been supportive of the notion that sunshine is the best disinfectant in public affairs. As anyone knows who has followed our career, that is one of THE PLANET’s key philosophical assumptions. What we don’t get is why, when the sunshine is directed to her actions, she has such a problem.

That is for her to answer.

We look forward to her attack on THE PLANET in the upcoming Gazette. It will help sell papers. Meanwhile, we genuinely wish Malumphy well. As she has proven in the past, she is a woman with some talent and a desire for public service. We only hope she decides to use these God-given gifts in a productive way.


The subhead to this item comes from one of our correspondents who uses the name of one of the great Beatles songs, “No Reply.” It got us here at THE PLANET to think.

This website, as all do, have a feature allowing people to respond. That’s the excitement of the web, an interactivity that can’t be matched by any other medium. It’s the webmaster’s choice to activate this feature, and here at THE PLANET, we have and will continue to do it. I will say, though, that for each legitimate response to a post, there’s several (sometimes many) that have to be deleted, for one of two reasons. The post is either spam or spam-like, or it contains gratuitous vulgarity and other unpublishable content.

It’s interesting, being backstage at a site like this, to see such how the traffic moves. It is a small thing, but maybe not as small as we would all like. For if the percentages of reasonable posts to unreasonable ones stays at its current level or goes even higher, it doesn’t bode well for our society, culture, country, or democracy.

But we are happy. Good stuff lies ahead, including tonight marquee match of THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS versus the Pittsburgh Steelers. To good maybe great teams, deciding who’s tops in football.



  1. Ivan The Rational
    November 14, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    “Malumphy has a bee not just in her bonnet but elsewhere, where it has apparently decided to reside. We don’t think the sun shines there, either.”

    That statement is not funny, and it is crude. Further, you go on to say you respond to Ms. Malumphy in a respectful manner, but where is your respect here in your home, Further to deride Mulumphy as an “over emotional female,” is nothing more than stereotyping and simply sheds light on your character. The man doth protest too much.

    • danvalenti
      November 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

      Thank you for your reply. We shall see that Dan gets it.
      Linda, for PLANET VALENTI

    • danvalenti
      November 14, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

      The statement, if you will read carefully, says that she has acted in a way that gives undue credence to the “over emotional female.” Pam chose to respond this way, instead of answering my simple question about the veracity of the claim that she has filed an action with the ethics commission against the mayor. This is the worst of the “oh woe is me, a helpless female” syndrome. She wants to play with the big boys, but when she’s caught in an action she wanted to keep hidden, she starts to cry. Well, with all due respect, that’s not how the boys play the game.

      • Pam Malumphy
        November 15, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

        Should anyone be interested, send me an email at and I will provide you what I have written about this ridiculous exchange. To set the record straight, and for all of Mr. Valenti’s sleuthing, the only ethics complaint out there is a joint complaint filed by myself and Jeff Ferrin because of perceived inequities on the PEDA board. This has been public knowledge for months and if Mr. Valenti simply called to ask about either story, I would have told him (and I agree with one of the writer’s observations about the credibility of sources…how does a story go from a non-existent secretive lawsuit to a common-knowledge ethics complaint?). As I relayed to Mr. Valenti, the excuse of his using a mistaken email is untrue. There is no nor has there ever been a so it can’t self-populate in your To box as Mr. Valenti tried to assert with me. He had also emailed just days before at the same email address he has ALWAYS used without issue. Mr. Valenti simply wanted to create a story and draw attention to himself and, by doing so, was able to fulfill the need to share some rather pathetic mano-a-mano time with the mayor. So to the writer who wondered why it took me four emails to finally tell him about the complaint…I have to be honest, I was so angry at being drawn into this sham and lied to, I just didn’t want to tell him. None of this, by the way, is news to Mr. Valenti….I have been clear with him about this story and he has known it for over the last 24 hours. It’s a bit disturbing that the story remains on his site and he is still responding to the writer’s queries although he knows the truth – there is no story – and he’s known that since yesterday.

        • danvalenti
          November 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

          As much as Pam wants say it didn’t happen, my computer auto-address made the initial mistake that set her off. It was an innocent mistake, thus, when I sent the simultaneous e-mail to her, the mayor, and Ms. Ruffer, she inadvertently did not receive it. I apologized for that. However, as she says above, she failed to respond to a long series of subsequent e-mails over two days asking her to clarify the statement on my website about the actions she had taken against the mayor. THE PLANET had no way of knowing if the action mentioned by the original source was the same the ethics complaint regarding the PEDA board, unless she confirmed or clarified. She refused to do that, repeatedly despite calm requests, out of anger. It took many attempts and days to learn from Pam that there is “no story.” That, of course, became the story, which is the irony here.

  2. Wondering out Loud
    November 14, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    Here’s what I don’t understand in all this. Wjhy hasn’t Malumph just answered the question. Dan, ytou say you have received five letters from you. And you say she hasn’t anwered you questions. This sounds fishy to me,. Whats she hiding? She sounds like shes gone off the deep end.

  3. Dean
    November 15, 2010 at 5:24 am #

    Dan, I have noticed that you are extemely liberal with your “sources”, never disclosing names. While I understand the protective nature of your journalism you have lost quite a bit of credibility to me, and as i would expect, to others as well. It may not be true on this occasion but your sources often speculate and in many cases are wrong or they stretch the truth. Consider this a plea for you to find some journalistic integrity (a polite way of telling you to grow a pair), and use some real sources that dont hide behind your scathing words. -Dean

    • danvalenti
      November 15, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

      Thanks, but I’m endowed plenty, thanks.
      As to your more substantive comment, but I only wish my sources we’re freer with their IDs. I ALWAYS prefer on the record but honor when the info is given under condition of anonymity. I assure you, my source in the Teapot story is a real person, and I have his real name. To the contrary, I’m extremely conservative in my use of sources. What people aren’t used to is a trained journalist bringing the protocols of his profession to bear on alternative, “anti-establishment” blog “news.” See?

  4. Jim Gleason
    November 15, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    I don’t think Pam’s reply is over emotional at all. I think it’s an honest reply to a mis-deed done her by you, Dan, who obviously didn’t contact her via well established venues, email and phone. I usually agree with you on most things but not this. Pam has not gone off the deep end, and the way she was wronged by ruberto and Eva Braun would make me resort to much more drastic action than she has taken.

    • danvalenti
      November 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

      Thanks for your views. The “misdeed” centered around the fact that I made an inadvertent error. I thought I had sent request for comment, simultaneously, to the mayor, Ms. Ruffer, and Pam Malumphy at the same time, in the same fashion. She didn’t get the original e-mail because the autowizard on my computer completed her name with the wrong address. I admitted that and apologized to her. It was not intentional. When she contacted me, it was angrily, and I haven’t posted, nor do I intend to post, those missives. We subsequently exchanged a bunch of emails, and each time I asked for her to simply clarify what my online source had said. She didn’t do that when she could have, thus causing a non-story to become the story.

  5. Ivan the Rational
    November 15, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    My response is directed to your excessively harsh and crude language.

    As for the reference to emotions, who would appreciate “undue” stereotypes being evoked, even if softened by mitigating words. Why not try a little self-editing?

    • danvalenti
      November 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

      I understand. Actually, I do a lot of self-editing — too much for some, not enough for others.

  6. JB
    November 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    I’d like to see these two settle their dispute with a contemporary version of the Burr-Hamilton duel; a wrestling match using those inflatable sumo wrestler outfits.

    • danvalenti
      November 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

      I’m game, except I’d feel like Andy Kauffman.

  7. Pam Malumphy
    November 16, 2010 at 6:53 am #

    One last note and then I buckling up, signing off eternally and blasting far, far away from Planet Valenti. Mr. Valenti apologized to me in our emails for all of the misunderstandings and also clearly stated that he would delete references to ‘blind hatred’ knowing that I don’t blindly hate anyone and to say so only diminishes and devalues what many of us have been trying to say: we simply want honorable leadership in this city. Period. But then again, almost every statement above is somehow diminishing and devaluing…what woman doesn’t enjoy being referred to as ‘hysterical.’ However, as I look above, the reference to ‘blind hatred’ remains. So much for keeping one’s word, Mr. Valenti. At the same time you sent the email clearly telling me you would make this edit, you were simultaneously responding to writers commenting on this story as if a story exists. And you wonder why people, including me, no longer trust you, your sources, or your storytelling.

  8. Still wondering
    November 16, 2010 at 7:43 am #

    As Pam rockets out of the solar system, we are still wondering why she hasn’t directly answered the question.