PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012) — Having made it through the non-existent “winter,” we can now move to the pursuits of spring, when young men’s fancies turn to dog walks.


The Berkshires’ own Josh Billings put it best: “A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.”

Fact: The average dog is a nicer person than the nicest person. Dogs hold nothing back, give always of their all, and — unlike people — have no puzzling need to mix love with hate and top it with guile.

We see it every time a man throws a tennis ball and the dog, rapt with attention in the utter delight of play, runs for it as if the Morlocks are chasing. We see it in the eyes, always the eyes — open, honest, gentle, innocent, and wise — a look not to be seen in any other set of peepers on earth. It arrests us every time our eyes lock onto a gaze from a glance with a canine buddy.

The following is from the website

—– 00 —–

The Wonder of a Dog’s Loyalty

When I look at this photo, I wonder:

Taken on Jan. 15, 2011. For the second consecutive day, Leao, waits next to the grave of her owner, Cristina Santana, who dies in the week's catastrophic landslides in Brazil, near Rio de Janiero. Leao kept returning to the grave, and she was finally adopted by a friend of the woman who died. (Photo by Vanderlei Almeida)

. . . how did this dog and her companion become separated?

. . . what did they endure?

. . . how did one survive and one not?

. . . when did they become separated?

. . . how did they find each other again?

. . . how long will this dog mourn there on her grave?

. . . will she die of a lonely heart?

. . . will she be allowed to leave on her own?

. . . does her human companion know she is there?

This photo shows the closeness between two sentient beings that we all hope for in our lives. It’s pure and simple; it’s heartfelt. To me, this photo shows something wonderful about someone I never even knew.

Bless them both.

—– 00 —–

Parks Commission Hearing at 7 p.m. tonight, Room 203, City Hall — Your Presence is Kindly Requested

This is what were talking about when we mention Toby Moore. Look at this little guy. Look at his eyes.

TOBY MOORE: Namesake of TOBY II and subject of an item at tonight's PArks Commission meeting at City Hall at 7 p.m. Please attend.

Toby stood faithfully by the unconscious body of Peter Moore on the night of Dec. 8, 2011. Most of us know the sad story, where the original accused crime, as bad as it is, has been outdone in immorality by the attempt at its coverup.

Tonight, at 7 p.m., Room 203 in city hall, the Pittsfield Parks Commission will have the easiest vote in its history. Ken Ramsdell, acting on behalf of all the good, honest, decent citizens of Pittsfield, has petitioned the commission for the use of Kirvin Park on April 15 for the Toby II Dog Walk (see yesterday’s PLANET for a recap on the odd circumstances under which the city of Pittsfield forced Ramsdell to get a permit for the event).

Ladies and gentlemen, for Toby Moore, for Leao, for all the lovely dogs, and for all the lovely people of Pittsfield who are fed up to here with poison politics that have been oozing from the Body Politic like a runny, infected wound — make a showing tonight.

Spread the word. Invite a friend  … or two or three.

Stand up and be counted. Please support Ramsdell for going out on the limb for you. Show him you’re with him, and show the GOBs you’re not going to be pushed around any more.



On Wednesday, a pretrial conference is scheduled in the Nilan-Moore Case. There are a million questions here: Does that mean the judge threw out attorney Tim Shugrue‘s motion for dismissal because of “missing documents” (his “The Dog Ate My Homework” defense)? … Will Meredith Nilan make her first public appearance in connection with her multiple criminal charges? … If so, we she express any remorse for the events of the evening of Dec. 8, 2011? … Will it be open to the public … Will it even take place?

On Wednesday, we should know a bit more. FYI, THE PLANET has asked the relevant questions of the Worcester County DA’s office (assistant DA Joe Quinlan is representing We The People). We shall report anything we hear. As for the Pittsfield courts, the total communications blackout continues. From sources inside the courthouse, we hear that Clifford Nilan and “No Show” Speranzo have threatened anyone who “leaks” stuff to the press.

Well guess what: What happens in the courts is THE PEOPLE‘s business. A court employee who shares public information with the press should be commended, not threatened with a life sentence in Siberia. You can’t “leak” information that the public already owns. Anyone who insists otherwise is incorrect and acting in an illegal manner. And the press represents THE PEOPLE. Or is giving out something as simple as the time of a pretrial hearing the compromise of some great, State Secret.

Little by little, THE PEOPLE are going to find out. As hard as anyone tries to put an illegal gag order in place, it won’t work. The old days are gone. Cyberspace lets anyone with information share it with anyone else in an untraceable way. The GOB has been the last to catch on to this new invention called The Internet. Al Gore‘s invention, my friends, has wrested control of the information flow from the GOB hands and put it into the hands of  … anybody with a computer.

Answers to Some Relevant Court Questions

Here, we share answers to some other questions about court proceedings. We have reasons for these.

What if someone threatens or tries to intimidate me into dropping charges that have been filed? Such a person is obstructing justice and may be guilty of a felony offense called “retaliation.” Call the law enforcement agency which investigated the case originally or contact the assistant criminal district attorney who is handling the case in my office. Do so as soon as possible so that the threats can be documented and action taken to prevent reoccurrence.

Not that were suggesting that intimidation has and is occurring, mind you. Here’s another one:

What happens at trial? In a trial, the criminal district attorney presents the case for the State, attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime as charged. The defendant may present his or her side of the case, or may present no case at all. The jury (if one has been impaneled) or the judge must decide whether the State’s case has been proved by legally-sufficient evidence. If the defendant is found guilty, our law provides for a second stage of trial at which the defendant’s punishment, within the range authorized by law, is fixed by either the jury or a judge. The defendant is permitted to determine whether he wants his punishment set by the judge or a jury.

As for a pre-trial hearing, we present this from The Free Legal Dictionary by Farlex. THE PLANET shares this useful information so that all of us are on the same page of understanding after (if … when) the Meredith Nilan defense presents its next step:

—– 00 —–

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE — A meeting of the parties to an action and their attorneys held before the court prior to the commencement of actual courtroom proceedings.

A pretrial conference is a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. The conference is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge. A pretrial conference may be held prior to trial in both civil and criminal cases. A pretrial conference may be requested by a party to a case, or it may be ordered by the court. Generally, the term pretrial conference is used interchangeably with the term pretrial hearing.

A pretrial conference may be conducted for several reasons: (1) expedite disposition of the case, (2) help the court establish managerial control over the case, (3) discourage wasteful pretrial activities, (4) improve the quality of the trial with thorough preparation, and (5) facilitate a settlement of the case.

Pretrial conferences are conducted in criminal cases to decide matters that do not inquire into the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Under rule 17.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, pretrial conferences for criminal cases may be conducted to promote a fair and expeditious trial. In practice, federal and state courts use the pretrial conference in criminal cases to decide such preliminary matters as what evidence will be excluded from trial and what witnesses will be allowed to testify.

In a civil pretrial conference, the judge or magistrate, with the help of the attorneys, may (1) formulate and simplify the issues in the case, (2) eliminate frivolous claims or defenses, (3) obtain admissions of fact and documents to avoid unnecessary proof, (4) identify witnesses and documents, (5) make schedules for the submission of pretrial briefs and motions, (6) make rulings on motions submitted before the conference, (7) set dates for further conferences, (8) discuss the possibility of a settlement, and (9) discuss the consolidation or management of large, complex cases. After the conference, the judge or magistrate issues an order reflecting the results of the conference, and the order controls the future course of the case.

Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules. If a preliminary issue arises after the pretrial conference, a party may request a special pretrial hearing with the court to address the issue. (This special hearing marks the distinction between pretrial hearing and pretrial conference, when such a distinction is made.) In the alternative, the parties may address such an issue in court on the first day of trial, out of the presence of the jury.

All cases are guided by procedural rules that allow parties to obtain relevant evidence from other parties. The process of turning over evidence is called discovery, and the rules that apply to obtaining evidence are called discovery rules. In civil cases, discovery refers to the right of either party to obtain evidence from the other, but in a criminal case, discovery generally refers to the right of the defendant’s attorney to have access to information necessary to prepare a defense. Discovery issues are a common topic in pretrial conferences. Discovery orders that were issued prior to a pretrial conference may be reviewed for compliance at a pretrial conference, and new discovery orders may be issued after a pretrial conference.

Criminal defendants enjoy more procedural protections than do civil defendants, and the judge or magistrate must be careful to protect those rights. Generally, no criminal defendant who has requested assistance of counsel may be required to attend a pretrial conference without an attorney. No admissions made by the defendant or the defendant’s lawyer during the conference may be used against the defendant in a trial unless the admissions are written and signed by the defendant and the defendant’s attorney.

The judge or magistrate assigned to the case can choose to hold a pretrial conference, but the denial of a pretrial conference may be an unconstitutional denial of due process rights. For example, in a criminal case, a defendant has a due process right to a pretrial hearing when the defendant claims that a prosecutor has breached a plea agreement (United States v. Ataya, 864 F.2d 1324 [7th Cir. 1988]).

Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.

Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).

Pretrial proceedings vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions courts have bifurcated the pretrial conference into dispositional conferences and trial management conferences. In St. Paul, Minnesota, for example, the district court schedules a trial management conference to discuss administrative aspects of the case, such as scheduling. The courts also schedule a dispositional conference in which the parties may discuss the possibility of a plea bargain or settlement. If no agreement between the parties is forthcoming at the dispositional conference, the case proceeds to trial, and the court schedules no further meetings between the parties until trial. The parties are, nonetheless, free to continue negotiating, and they also may request a special pretrial hearing if an issue arises after the conference but prior to trial.

The first pretrial conference in the United States was held in Michigan in 1929. Over the years, as courts became more crowded, the pretrial conference became more important. Pretrial conferences save valuable time for courts and jurors by narrowing the focus of the trial and resolving preliminary matters. They also assist the court in the fair and impartial administration of justice by facilitating discovery and reducing the element of surprise at trial. Pretrial conferences are so important in civil cases that a court may order litigants to appear at a pretrial conference and impose fines on them if they refuse to appear (G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 [7th Cir. 1989]).

Further readings

Carlson, Elaine A. 1992. “Rule 166 Pretrial Conferences, Masters and Private Agreements: Revitalizing Old Tools to Meet Today’s Needs.” South Texas Law Review 33.

Masciopinto, Tony J. 1990. “G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp.: Expanding Rule 16’s Scope to Compel Represented Parties with Full Settlement Authority to Attend Pretrial Conferences.” DePaul Law Review 39.

Miller, Frank W., Robert O. Dawson, George E. Dix, and Raymond I. Parnas. 1991. Prosecution and Adjudication. 4th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.

Parness, Jeffrey A., and Matthew R. Walker. 2002. “Thinking Outside the Civil Case Box: Reformulating Pretrial Conference Laws.” University of Kansas Law Review 50.

Richardson, Elizabeth C. 1992. Civil Litigation for Paralegals. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Thompson Learning.


Civil ProcedureCriminal ProcedureDue Process of LawPlea BargainingRight to Counsel.

—– 00 —–

Remember, Parks Commission meeting tonight, 7 p.m., Room 203, City Hall, for TOBY II. Be there, for Toby Moore, the Moore Family, Ken Ramdsell, pet lovers, and all who respect goodness, decency, and honesty in life.







  1. levitan
    March 20, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    I don’t believe there is much that is substantive that the members of the court can state prior to any event taking place. It may be premature to claim a news blackout.

    • danvalenti
      March 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

      So how “substantive” is it to agree on a time for a show-cause hearing? There’s been an attempt to enforce a news blackout to wise guys like THE PLANET and Conor Berry, and you know what? That’s just going to allow the information to get to us in other ways, unofficially.

      • Debbie
        March 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

        Well maybe the dectective who visited Mr. Nilan at his office on Monday 3/19/12 is a very good friend or just a messenger! I guess we will find out soon enough.

        • Molly
          March 20, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

          Very interesting! Hopefully, it was part of the police investigation. And no, we won’t find out a thing until there’s an actual trial. If they make a deal with the DA, we’ll never know. And that’s my bet, although I think if that happens, this city will see more protests and complaints than it ever thought possible.

  2. Susan Moore
    March 20, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    Thank you for keeping us up to date on the 2 legged and 4 legged events in Pittsfield. I hope the meeting is packed tonight! Ken is doing a fantastic job. We’ll see what transpires tomorrow……….

  3. Molly
    March 20, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Yes we will! Absolutely nothing, at this point, would surprise me.

  4. Molly
    March 20, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    In response to my request to Alf Barbalunga, School Committee Minutes have now been posted for Nov. 16, Dec. 14, and Jan. 11. Although the website shows that they have been posted for Jan. 25 and Feb. 15, an error of “file not found” comes up. I have sent an email to Mr. Barbalunga asking for this to be corrected and also called the Help Desk. However, thus far, the documents are still not found.

    In response to my 2nd request to Alf Barbalunga, he has denied access to the resumes that have been received for the open position of Superintendent of Pittsfield Schools. The following are his response followed with my response to his:

    “i have consulted with the school committee attorney and i respectfully disagree with your position re: superintendent applications. they will not be posted, unless i receive a revised opinion,. it appears the only time those names (applications, resumes, etc.) have to become public, is if/when they are interviewed by the full school committee at a regular meeting. i have requested the attorney provide me with this interpretation in writing, and i will forward to you when i get. i suspect there are many reasons for this, two of which are the candidates may not have not notified their current employers of this job application, and do not wish these employers to know for obvious reasons. also, the candidates may not want their names discussed by media, blogs, etc., during the initial hiring stages, where negative commentary could ensue, and then google type searches could publicize this negative commentary about these individuals, and effect future employment opportunities
    My reply to Mr. Barbalunga:

    Thank you for your reply. Although I agree that your position sounds reasonable, it is not the law. Please allow me to direct your lawyer to the following document entitled “Open Meeting Law Guide” Office Of The Attorney General, Martha Coakley and dated February 10, 2012.

    Specifically, the following passage is located on Page 14 of the actual document/Page #16 of 30 as displayed by Adobe Reader, and under the section entitled,”Open Session Meeting Records” as follows:
    “There are two exemptions to the open session records disclosure requirement: 1) materials (other than those that were created by members of the public body for the purpose of the evaluation) used in a performance evaluation of an individual bearing on his professional competence, and 2) materials (other than any resume submitted by an applicant, which is subject to disclosure) used in deliberations about employment or appointment of individuals, including applications and supporting materials. Documents created by members of the public body for the purpose of performing an evaluation are subject to disclosure. This applies to both individual evaluations and evaluation compilations, provided the documents were created by members of the public body for the purpose of the evaluation.”

    Additionally, on Page 25 of 30 as displayed by Adobe Reader, under Section (e), Number (2) as follows:

    Notwithstanding this paragraph, the following materials shall be exempt from disclosure to the public as personnel information: (1) materials used in a performance evaluation of an individual bearing on his professional competence, provided they were not created by the members of the body for the purposes of the evaluation; and (2) materials used in deliberations about employment or appointment of individuals, including applications and supporting materials; provided, however, that any resume submitted by an applicant shall not be exempt.

    To me, this very plainly says that Resumes MUST be disclosed to the public. Additionally, this is clearly stated in the Open Meeting Law Online Training Video’s found at:

    Also, since any evaluations created by the School Committee for the performance evaluations of Dr. Eberwein are also considered public records as clearly stated above, please forward to me all performance evaluations done by the School Committee for Superintendent Dr. Eberwein.
    Note: Since these quotes are very vague, it remains to be seen who is right and if this information will be released.

    • danvalenti
      March 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

      Good exchange. We may use some of this.

    • Steve wade
      March 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

      Nancy Wow great info!

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        March 21, 2012 at 5:11 am #

        Gotta agree with Stevie boy on this one Molly…Great info!

  5. Concern
    March 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    I hope Ms Nilan takes my good advise, pleads guilty and gets this over with. Then she can get on with her young like.

    • ambrose
      March 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

      two misdemeaners, 1st offence, loss of licence, small fine, its over – probable civil case but crime part is disposed of

      • ambrose
        March 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm #


        • J.R. Fein
          March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

          Maybe but wht about the coverup? For the openers, Obstruction of justice, malfeasance, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, etc. Now that has some seriousness attached to it.

          • Molly
            March 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

            Intimidation of witnesses? What witnesses? Toby was the only witness and they had best not be intimidating him! Do you mean ER personnel? Or neighbors who reported hearing or seeing something? You’re right – those things have a great deal of seriousness to them! Problem is, proving them beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is not easy and, unfortunately, there are some that know that all too well…

            Did the PPD ever receive a copy of the tape?

          • danvalenti
            March 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

            There were plenty of witnesses of Meredith Nilan’s behavior on the night in question, starting with a lot of the BEEPERS, who partied with her at Allium’s restaurant before the hit-and-run.

          • levitan
            March 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

            My bet is the prosecutors don’t pursue those complaints and instead remain focused on the primary act of hit and run.

            You have to pick your battles wisely in court.

          • Molly
            March 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

            DV – good point! Very true.

  6. Scott
    March 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    “Cyberspace lets anyone with information share it with anyone else in an untraceable way.” That’s not entirely true people can find out who anyone is online especially the gov’t and local gov’t police agencies.

    • danvalenti
      March 20, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

      Your qualifier “entirely” validates my claim. Sure, there are “ways,” but are also ways around those “ways.” Also, for ordinary purposes, it would be impossible to monitor everyone for every transmission. Let’s just say they may think they got a black out, but they don’t.

      • Scott
        March 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

        Dan, does the average person even know what a proxy server is? How many idiots get caught cause they use their cell phones during or right before a crime? Of course there’s always another way and there are people who know but we’re talking about average Joe’s here.

        • J.R. Fein
          March 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

          Agree with both you guys.

          Scott’s right there are ways to track who’s doing hat but only under specific circumstances highly defined. Dan’s right: for ordinary purposes, anyone wanting to talk can do so.

          I am in a position to know quite a bit about what goes on in the Pittsfield courthouse. I know what I’m talking about. DV is also correct when he talked about a black out and a witch hunt trying to find out “Who’s talking.” It’s funny, because not much is getting out. Shows how paranoid they are getting.

          I can’t say how I know these things for that owuld be giving away a little too mcuh. But trust me I know.

          • ambrose
            March 20, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

            paranoia is a mental illnes -imagining people are after you – do you say the people in the courthouse are imagining things – also, just because your paranoid it doesn’t mean that they’re not really after you

          • Molly
            March 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

            Ambrose – yes, you are correct. But come on, we all know what he was trying to say – everyone is very aware of the “witch hunt” trying to find out who’s talking, and are nervous about making any mistakes. I’m surprised you let “witch hunt” go by, without your finding the need to give us the dictionary version of that along with the history.

          • J.R. Fein
            March 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

            ambrose, you know perfectly well what the word means when used like this. It means there’s an atmosphere of suspicion and fear in the courthouse. Courthouse old timers say they’ve never seen it as bad.

  7. dusty
    March 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    The fact that the DA does not hold a press conference just to let the people know justice is moving forward makes it seem like he does not care about the people he is supposed to be serving. It certainly seems unprofessional…though truthfully I am not surprised anymore.

    • danvalenti
      March 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

      It would certainly be helpful, to update the people.

  8. Ray Ovac
    March 20, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    DV, are any of the parties in Nilan-Moore going to address in the pre-trial conference the matter of the yet-to-be-recovered two-hour tape and the missing case file?

    • Molly
      March 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

      I would think that it has to be addressed as the judge needs to rule on the Motion To Dismiss because of the missing documents – and will (or should) do so tomorrow at this pre-trial conference. Although as I said previously, nothing would surprise me.

  9. tito
    March 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    What hearing? Two seconds.

  10. Joe Pinhead
    March 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Just wanted to drop a quick thank you to all those that supported the event application. Whether you supported in person or in spirit it is truly appreciated and I thank you. Now I cant wait to see you all at the park on the 15th of April both Myself and pi are excited he cant wait to see his new friends again.

    • Molly
      March 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

      🙂 🙂 🙂 Good Job, Ken!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 Thank you!

    March 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    give some details, was Cliffy there, what was said etc.

    • danvalenti
      March 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

      Clifford was there. He hid out in the back room until shortly before chairman Herman called the meeting to order. He did say peep, except to approve the vote for Toby II. There was no debate or deliberation whatsoever. The motion was approved in 30 seconds. We shall have more tomorrow.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

        thank you

  12. Sandy
    March 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    I was not able to attend but spoke to someone who attended and yes Cliffy was there and voted for the walk. I am sure Dan will have more tomorrow.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

      thank you also Sandy

  13. tito
    March 21, 2012 at 3:36 am #

    NO reporting on the Parks Meeting last night in either the Eagle or the radio, sad. Thanks Planet!

  14. tito
    March 21, 2012 at 3:39 am #

    NO reporting on the Parks Meeting last night in either the Eagle or the radio, sad. Thanks Planet! Molly has coined the best description for these shenanigans…OBSCURITY.

    • dusty
      March 21, 2012 at 5:46 am #

      Meanwhile one of the defendants in the Hall case wants to change lawyers. This was big news at Eagle headquarters at got a full story. Seriously, who is in charge in the clock tower? Is he still wearing that Nixon mask when he ventures out of his cave? I thought with Ruberto gone it might open up for at least a little more worthy news.

  15. X-Ray I's
    March 21, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Its so bad at the Bb that they’ve given up on the Nixon masks. Theyre wearing Agnew masks now.

    • danvalenti
      March 21, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

      What’s next? Stracuzzi masks?

  16. dusty
    March 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    The parks dept is GOB blue blood in the flesh. Do not be foolish enough to expect courtesy from these holier than thou, self aggrandizing snobs.

    Some men (and woman) simply cannot handle power without it going straight to their pompous little heads. You see it all the time in government and Pittsfield is a true showcase of what it can do to some people.

    • danvalenti
      March 21, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

      From what we witnessed in person last night, you are correct. You had Herman, Nilan, and what looked like three timid bum-kissers.