PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THURSDAY, OCT. 4, 2012) — We were about ready to ready and publish a story about the national deficit when late word came in on a developing story that could have profound effects on future relations between Mayor Dan Bianchi and the Pittsfield City Council. This development could also play a role in the election of 2013.


Council President Kevin Sherman, at-large, and Ward 1 councilor Christine Yon have filed a petition requesting “that the City Council take a vote of no confidence regarding the professional competence of City Solicitor Kathleen E. Degnan.” The wording is straight from the petition, and supplies the complete text. In other words, the petition is short and sweet and in laser-like fashion to the point.

To the PLANET’s questions, Sherman sent this response, which we publish in full:

—– 00 —–

Yes, this matter is on the agenda for Tuesday October 9, 2012.  Councilor Yon and I spoke with the Mayor on September 6 to discuss our concerns, many of which stemmed from the actions taken by the Solicitor during the Federal Lawsuit with Spectrum though there are other examples of questionable judgement/advice as well over the past nine months.  Following that conversation in which we asked that our concerns be addressed, I had multiple follow up meetings and conversations with the Mayor.  I attempted to meet with Ms. Degnan and the Mayor but that meeting never came to fruition.  I also reached out to Ms. Degnan last week but a meeting never materialized.  

Given a month from the start of the conversation, it was unclear how or if the concerns would be addressed.  This petition is one of last resort as I would have preferred a collaborative resolution.  Unfortunately, I was left with no choice but to support my colleague, Councilor Yon, who was directly effected by the behavior in the course of litigation along with the residents of Pittsfield who elected me to protect their best interests.  I believe that is what I’m doing in this case.  The concerns that I have, that I’ve heard from colleagues, and that I’ve heard from members of the public are based in fact and is not personal in nature.  The bottom line is there is little evidence that we as a city and as a Council are being represented effectively and, therefore, there is a lack of confidence from that standpoint.  

The effect of the vote would be to put our concerns on the record and to vote accordingly.  If the vote is 11-0 or 0-11 it holds no weight other than to show the extent of the concerns.  Believe me when I say this is the last thing I wanted to do but feel it is my responsibility as Council President and At Large City Councilor to stand behind the residents and my colleague.  If any other department head caused as much harm to another colleague I would follow the same course of action:  Address the situation with the managing authority and attempt to meet with all parties involved to find a resolution.  At the point in time that it appeared a resolution would not be forthcoming, I would take the next necessary step which is what I’ve done here.  I can’t stress enough that this is an action of last resort.

In my last conversation with the Mayor I stated that if a vote of no confidence was put forth, following that vote no matter the outcome, I would be in his office the following weeks to continue to work with him and his administration on matters vital to our community.  I will not let this one issue grind government to a halt.  I know that we will rise above as professionals once this issue is put to bed and work for the best interest of the City.

—– 00 —–

THE PLANET has contacted the mayor’s office for comment,and we are waiting a response. We shall continue our followup to this important story. Now that the Boring Broadsheet knows about it, expect them to have sloppy seconds tomorrow. Normally, one would expect professional etiquette. When one news outlet breaks a story and another follows up, the follower by unwritten media rule must credit the medium that originally had the scoop. THE PLANET follows this rule religiously. We won’t expect it from the BB, not even after waking up Dick Lindsay from his sleep.


Where did the mammoth US budget deficits come from?

Let’s go back about a decade, when budget surpluses were predicted for the foreseeable future. Somehow, the math went terribly wrong, by trillions of dollars. Here’s an accounting of what happened.

By Peter Grier | Christian Science Monitor 

  • What’s the cause of the federal government’s huge budget deficits? That’s a question that is harder to answer in the particular than you might think. The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in. The specific reasons as to why this state of affairs exists are a mix of human decisions, economic circumstance, and the cumulative effect of time.

Context is important here. So let’s start with 2001. That year, theCongressional Budget Office looked out over the decade to come and saw ahead nothing but blue skies and black ink. It predicted that between 2001 and 2011 the US would run budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion.

That didn’t happen. Instead, the US racked up $6.1 trillion in deficits over that period. CBO’s prediction was a whopping $11.7 trillion off the mark. How did things go so wrong?

CBO has gone back and studied that, as it happens. In a paper published earlier this year, the group’s economists tried to pull out and compare the reasons for the multitrillion swing.

RECOMMENDED: Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on debt and deficits

One big problem was that CBO isn’t magical. Unblessed with the ability to predict the future, it didn’t accurately foresee the economic troubles of coming years, including the crash of the Great Recession. This meant that less tax money came in than anticipated. Overall, CBO says that about $3.3 trillion of its $11.7 prediction error can be attributed to “economic and technical changes” to projected revenues.

Then there were the tax cuts. President George W. Bush instigated most of these, but President Obama also pushed through Congress a payroll tax cut intended to pump money into a moribund economy. Tax cuts accounted for a further $2.8 trillion of the $11.7 trillion discrepancy. (Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.)

Finally, there are the increases in outflows unpredicted by CBO. Between 2001 and 2011, increaseddiscretionary spending amounted to about $3 trillion. This category includes defense spending related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security upgrades in the US, spending on food stamps and other hard-times safety net programs, and other general budget categories that are supposed to be approved annually by Congress.

Mandatory spending – a category that includes the Medicare prescription-drug program approved under Bush, the TARP bank bailout, and Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus package – went up by about $1.4 trillion during the period in question. (This type of outflow is called “mandatory” not because we had to do it, but because it results from formulas established by Congress instead of appropriated dollar totals.)

Charles Blahous, a former economic official in the Bush White House who is currently a Hoover Institution research fellow, has rolled all these numbers together into a simple pie chart. His answer to the question “where did the $11.7 trillion go?” is this: 27 percent went away due to projection inaccuracy; 24 percent went to tax cuts; and 49 percent can be accounted for by various forms of increased spending.

Yes, yes, but who’s to blame? It’s election season, after all, and accusations as to which party is responsible for most of this damage are as thick on the ground as October leaves after a windstorm. Asked why the debt has increased during his four years in office during a “60 Minutes” interview last week, Mr. Obama pointed a finger at his predecessor:

“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription-drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

That answer is not accurate. Obama appeared to be talking about numbers that reflect the cumulative debt since 2001, not just his term. According to a White House-produced chart on the national debt, if you take the 10-year period of 2001 to 2011, Bush policies accounted for 55 percent of that figure. Obama-initiated policies such as the stimulus accounted for 11 percent, while the recession took care of the rest.

(The White House chart puts the total debt at $12.7 trillion, not $11.7 trillion, as does the CBO. The White House uses different underlying economic assumptions.)

But even that chart is something of an apples-to-mangoes comparison. Bush was president for eight years, and Obama for three. This is where the passage of time comes in – Bush’s tax cuts in particular had more time to accumulate and thus appear as a bigger part of the overall picture than the later-arriving Obama stimulus package.

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler has looked at this in depth, and made his attempt at adding up who is responsible for the $1.3 trillion 2011 deficit alone. His rough estimate is that economic factors accounted for about 46 percent of this single-year shortfall, while Obama policies accounted for 44 percent, and Bush-era policies for about 10 percent.

Splitting up deficit causes by administration may be politically interesting. It’s possible, though, that it’s effectively pointless, in that it doesn’t lead to a better understanding of the choices that will confront US policymakers in years to come.

A more useful way of looking at things could be to reslice deficit numbers into cyclical and structural figures. The cyclical deficit is caused by stuff that varies from year to year, like food stamp spending, which is driven by unemployment. The structural deficit is welded into the structure of the federal budget like steel beams. It reflects chronic problems that only worsen, such as the rising cost of health care.

According to CBO, about $367 billion of the $1.3 trillion 2011 deficit was caused by cyclical stuff. Some $928 billion was structural. This is the part we really need to worry about, according to such budget watchdog groups as the Concord Coalition.

The most important of these structural factors should come as no surprise. They are the aging of the baby boom population, which will drive up the number of people enrolled in Social Security andMedicare; and the continued increase in health-care costs, which makes Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health-care programs more expensive on a per-person basis.

Population aging accounts for 64 percent of the cost growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid through 2035, according to a Concord Coalition analysis published earlier this year. Thirty-six percent is due to rising health-care costs.

“Borrowing our way through this is not a viable option because the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is not a temporary blip. It gets bigger with time. Incurring permanently rising debt would result in staggering interest costs and ultimately a total debt burden that would crush the economy,” concludes the Concord Coalition analysis.






  1. Pfffft
    October 4, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    Thanks Planet This is my go-to site for news on my old home town, The Pitts. Now located in Midwest where it is much different and better. What amazes me is how this site in DV one man can so consistently beat out the Eagle with its full staff. Realize that the paper isn’t what it used to be but still that has to be an embarrassment for the Eagle, to be beat out so frequently and so badly by DV the best journalist in that area or anywhere. Berks Cty be glad you have him.

  2. Still wondering
    October 4, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    It’s the spending, stupid.

  3. joetaxpayer
    October 4, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    I would like to make a vote of no confidence for the city council.They should worry about doing there own jobs.

    • Levitan
      October 4, 2012 at 11:40 am #

      Good one. The blackballing of Degnan amounts to dirty politics. The Council is not pursuing an agenda that represents the City’s interests.

      • dusty
        October 5, 2012 at 2:14 am #

        My guess is that Yon and Sherman would not be pushing this unless they already knew they had the votes to oust her. And if they did all get together and discuss this…is that legal?

        I imagine Lothrop and Clairmont have been practicing their speeches on the subject.

    • billy
      October 5, 2012 at 8:11 am #

      the solicitors job is to represent the city and defend its elected officals. if you look just at the facts that have been presented.she did a dissevice to both by what was said in court and in voice mail.. giving the company the abilility to imply discrimination her loose use of words were so damming spectrum took them and used them against the city. so stick with the facts….. and get off GOB the case was won three times before……what changed? the lawyer

  4. Jim Gleason
    October 4, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    This proposed vote of no confidence is nothing but a witch hunt against Atty Degnan and Mayor Dan Bianchi.I’m thoroughly disappointed and disgusted in Kevin Sherman for co-sponsoring this. I guess he’s in the GOB camp for sure now. The messes dumped on Degana and Mayor Bianchi by ruberto are and have been monumental and they both have done a great job in cleaning up the messes from the ruberto fiasco of eight years.

    • dusty
      October 5, 2012 at 1:38 am #

      For those who may have missed it. When this new GOB controlled council got themselves elected did you really think they would not make one of their own president? Did you really think they would allow totally independent thought to preside over what might happen to the cash cow?

  5. Silent Majority
    October 4, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    Have to disagree with Jim G. Degnan blew the Spectrum case. The city had won three times in court with Dahoney handling the case, when Degnan came on in March things went downhill.

    Review Planet’s story on this a few weeks ago and you’ll learn of Degnan’s shocking performance in court that handed the case to Spectrum and the hundred grand that went with it.

    Bianchi still hasnt explained why he willingly gave up a hundred grand of taxpayers $$ to Spectrum. I applaud Sherman and Yon action. Would you feel comfortable with Degnan as your attorney?

    • Kevin
      October 4, 2012 at 10:37 am #

      Agreed, Sherman wanted to address this behind closed doors?

    • Levitan
      October 4, 2012 at 11:44 am #


      Must we go over this yet another time….

      Court wins for the city were nice, but the Fed’s and State mandated that the city cannot bar Spectrum. In the end, we would have lost. $100K is called cutting your losses, and comparable outcomes indicates we avoided a much steeper price.

      Have you ever gone to court and regretted something that your lawyer said? One sentence does not ruin a case.

      • Kevin
        October 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

        “If the gloves don’t fit you must acquit” That sentence pretty much ruined a case?

        • Levitan
          October 5, 2012 at 5:53 am #

          That case was ruined by the LAPD tampering with evidence and the lawyers not testing out a hypothesis so simple as can teh defendant wear evidence that is a year old.

          The comparison is silly, so it’s not a rejoinder.

          • Kevin
            October 5, 2012 at 7:46 am #

            Of course it was a rejoinder
            rejoinder [rɪˈdʒɔɪndə]
            1. a reply or response to a question or remark, esp a quick witty one; retort

        • Levitan
          October 5, 2012 at 5:54 am #

          Not to mention, that line summed up the defenses argument which was, “the evidence is not sound.”

          • Levitan
            October 5, 2012 at 9:14 am #

            Rejoinder is not any answer, only a pertinent answer. You made no argument with the OJ reference.

      • danvalenti
        October 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

        Go back to THE PLANET’s long posting of the timeline on the Spectrum case. The court stipulated the city couldn’t bar Spectrum after the city solicitor spoke of the wild-eyed, end-of-the-world prejudice of the city against druggies. Prior to that, based on building inspections (which were addressed by Spectrum) and zoning (which weren’t) the city had prevailed. The zoning matter might have won. We won’t know. What we do know is that the city lost all chance based on the performance of its attorney in court.

      • MaryKate
        October 4, 2012 at 4:37 pm #


        However, if that one sentence implies predjudices against a class of ADA, then it very well ruins a case.

        • MaryKate
          October 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm #


          • Levitan
            October 5, 2012 at 5:45 am #

            The prejudice was real and present, and time was not in the city’s favor. The lawyer did not bungle the case.

          • Levitan
            October 5, 2012 at 9:19 am #

            Prejudice has to be argued and proven, not implied in a misplaced assertion. What if Spectrum was well on it’s way to proving that prejudice in fact was behind the city’s opposition? The cost to us for losing that case would make the $100K look unsubstantial.

  6. joetaxpayer
    October 4, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    Agree with Jim. It appears to me that Dahoney did’nt win shit if the case was still on going.If everytime a lawyer lost a case they got fired, there would be a boat load of politicians.

    • billy
      October 5, 2012 at 7:57 am #

      i beg to differ. one word does ruin a case. obviouslly everyone commenting on this action has not read the voicemail the solicitor left on the opossing lawyers voicemail. was damaging enough to the city that they submitted into court to use against us. our own lawyer gave them what they needed to allege

  7. anytime
    October 4, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    Ms. Degnan handed the case to Spectrum whose lawyer couldn’t be what he just heard. The session came in a June court appearance and the city solicitor told the judge that the city of Pittsfield was illegally discriminating against the handicapped (heroin addicts). Slam dunk then Mayor gives them $100,000 of the Kapanskis money. Go Sherman and Yon and hope every councilor supports this.

    • joetaxpayer
      October 4, 2012 at 10:43 am #

      Anytime, just maybe she was trying to put this thing to bed.Mayor Roberto with his over my dead body comment says it all. Do you want another Walter Powell case that goes on for 10 years and we the people us 5 lawyers to try to save face.We still lost,wonder how much that lawyer bill was.

      • Donald
        October 4, 2012 at 11:00 am #

        Oh. Ok. That makes perfect sense Joe. Her goal was to settle so instead of stating that, she portrays the neighboring residents as a bunch of bigots which gives the city no choice but to settle. Brilliant. Seems completely competent to me.

        • danvalenti
          October 4, 2012 at 11:27 am #

          Also, the point has been made, and it’s a good one, that the city under Rich Dohoney’s direction had prevailed three times in court, not having to concede a thing much less hand out money. That is factual. It’s also factual that beginning with Solicitor Degnan’s taking over the case, the city’s actions in court (and out) resulted in the granting of an injunction against the city plus $100,000 plus $75,000 if Spectrum relocates from Summer Street. Would the city have continued to prevail? That’s speculative, but based on its three previous wins, it appears the city had a stronger case than Spectrum. All that was for naught, however, the moment Degnan, representing Bianchi, the city council, Ward 1, and all of the city, essentially told Spectrum’s attorney and the court that Pittsfield had a bunch of wild-eyed bigots who were cruelly discriminating against a disabled subset of the population, namely, heroin junkies.

          • Levitan
            October 4, 2012 at 11:47 am #

            So the city with it’s ramshackle defense wandered into the deepest waters under Ruberto and therefore concludes that it is a ship?

            Would you speculate your own money on prevailing against Spectrum?

          • danvalenti
            October 4, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

            You are ignoring the facts. Three victories in court, prior to Ms. Degnan’s court appearances in June, which sealed the city’s fate. Every taxpayer WAS betting their own money, by the way.

          • dusty
            October 5, 2012 at 1:41 am #

            Either way you must admit that the GOB command center will be no less than jubilant if they can get their own people back into presiding over the cities legal matters.

  8. Ron Kitterman
    October 4, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Not since Bo and Luke Duke ( Good old boys) pulled off a more sleazy one but Daisy is gone on this one.

  9. Scott
    October 4, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Obama made a lot of sense during the debate I think he deserves a second term.

    On Degnan I was disappointed to learn she represented us as a bunch of bigots who discriminate against the “disabled”.

    • Levitan
      October 4, 2012 at 11:48 am #

      Disappointing language, but from the debates held right here, Degnan was at least accurate.

      • Scott
        October 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

        I always held the position that addicts deserve better so I don’t know what you’re referring to.

        • Levitan
          October 5, 2012 at 5:49 am #

          Read Kevin’s post below. Just as a case in point.

          “I am bigoted against Opiate addicts, I just don’t pay my attorney to say so”

          A lawyer claiming the presence of bigotry does not actually establish that bigotry exists. The problem with the city’s case is that it was founded not on legitimate concerns but on bigotry, as attested to by this one commentator.

          • Kevin
            October 5, 2012 at 8:06 am #

            No no no, you said prior to my post that the debate here at PV was Bigoted without saying the word. I responded based on real life experience and sarcasm. Degnan should be fired. So to use me as your example is spurious……

      • Kevin
        October 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

        I am bigoted against Opiate addicts, I just don’t pay my attorney to say so, in fact I pay my attorney to say the opposite or I fire them!

        • Levitan
          October 5, 2012 at 9:13 am #

          The city screwed up by hiring a lawyer to deny space to Spectrum. Bad use of city resources and puts the lawyer in an impossible situation.

          Again, the judge warned the lawyer that language of discrimination is not helpful, but that one sentence did not ruin her case. Spectrum jumped not on the lawyer but on the evidence of discrimination.

          Who knows, perhaps this site’s debate was a primary source of fodder.

          Of all the commentators here, I can think of only three by name who did not espouse some form of disdain for treating heroin addicts. If Degnan didn’t say it then, Spectrum would have nailed the city on discrimiation later, ten’s of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars later.

          Degnan is looking more like a scapegoat with every ‘revelation.’

    • Joe Blow
      October 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

      Are you being sarcastic about the debate? Even the uber liberals at msnbc were freaking out about Barry Soetoro performance.

  10. joetaxpayer
    October 4, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Scott there not disabled and I think you had the tv on the wrong channel last nite.He deserves a second term somewhere else,maybe Disneyland.

    • Spectator
      October 4, 2012 at 11:50 am #

      You mean so Willard can turn the rest of America into KB Toys? And you know he was sniveling at you with his 47% comment too right?

    • Scott
      October 4, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

      I know *they’re not it’s the language “they” use which is why I put it in parentheses.

  11. joetaxpayer
    October 4, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Obama must be stopped.Willard sucks Obama sucks more!

  12. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    October 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Here are the facts via Poltifact who sort out Politicians statements vs THE ACTUAL FACTS…I’ll grant you this, Willard won the debate on style hands down, it just turns out he was lying an awful lot and President Obama didn’t call him out at all…

    • Scott
      October 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

      Obama made sense when he talked about health care and gas prices I agree the wealthy oil companies should be paying in more.

  13. Jonathan Melle
    October 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Jimmy Ruberto handed Dan Bianchi “a —- sandwich” and the Good Old Boys go after City Solicitor Kathleen E. Degnan. [PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN COMMENTS ON THIS SITE: WEBMASTER]

    • Scott
      October 4, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

      Obama was handed a “**** sandwich” by the Bush admin and now people really think Romney is the answer. I agree Romney has some good ideas on finance and how the economy works but I don’t think he commands the same trust and respect as Obama. No one is ever going to buy something from someone they don’t like. [KEEP THIS SITE CLEAN: WEBMASTER]

      • Scott
        October 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

        I did not know the “s word” was off limits. Noted.

        • danvalenti
          October 4, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

          Well, on occasion, it’s OK, but in a serial comment such as this, initiated by a poor choice of words by the first commenter, we’d rather keep a tight rein. We support the Webmaster’s actions, in support of our stated policies.

          • Still wondering
            October 5, 2012 at 8:30 am #

            Obama commands trust and respect? Are you kidding??

  14. Scott
    October 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    On another note in case anyone was wondering there seems to be more air traffic and I’m delighted that the flight path is right over my house. No pictures are falling off the wall but the first time one flew over I thought it was going to land on me.

  15. joetaxpayer
    October 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    True, Pres. Obama was handed a “**** sandwich”.He turned it into a footlong double-decker. [PLEASE KEEP THE SITE CLEAN: WEBMASTER]

  16. Mike
    October 4, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    How happy is Lynn Whitney right about now?

    • danvalenti
      October 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

      Depends on which side of the hammer she ends up on. When your the hammer, strike, but when you’re the anvil, bear.

  17. Pat
    October 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Obama doesn’t tell the truth. He hasn’t told the truth on what happened to our murdered ambassador and others, not on fast and furious, not on his college transcripts and how he got into Harvard. He was supposed to be a very transparent administration, but that is far from what has happened. The man is truth challenged.

    Romney seems like a very capable, honest, and nice man who really cares about getting this country back on its feet. GO ROMNEY!!

  18. Williams
    October 4, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Where’s PB now that Romney wiped out Obama last night in the debate? I mean where is he in giving credit to DV for being part of a debate prep team that had the candidate ready for prime time? Great job DV and also in posting that article on the deficit, which is the biggest issue of all of them.

    October 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    In reply to “wms.”: Since our last message was redacted we shall tread carefully. Valenti can take credit for prepping Romney, yes, and with that credit for helping to undermine the chances, the only chance, of America to keep moving forward under President Obama. Valenti is a well-paid mercenary taking Romney campaign for a fortune meanwhile acting as the schoolyard bully on this site, pretending to be the the Little Guy as he calls them.

  20. Evian
    October 4, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    Are you serious PB? Man, you are a jealous little thing. The rest of us gives thanks to DV for leading the way here. DV could be elected mayor if he but said the word. He has more power and influence in town that you can ever dream, or maybe you do and that is why you are so envious.

  21. Kelvin Ferrante
    October 4, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    Bianchi’s response to this petition regarding Degnan along with commentary from councilor Mazzeo can be found on

  22. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    October 5, 2012 at 5:44 am #

    Romney’s BIG Lie…

    What say ye DV??????

  23. BBall_8
    October 5, 2012 at 5:46 am #

    I always love the “good old boy” rhetoric. As if the current administration doesn’t have it’s “GOBs”. My understanding is Ms. Degnan is a friend of the Mayor, as well as some outspoken Councilors, hence the vigorous defense of her handling of the City’s legal matters. Per several contacts involved in court proceedings, Ms Degnan has indeed mishandled several matters and seems in over her head. Its nothing personal or political. When you have an underperforming employee, there are repercussions… unless you have another stake in the game (because you are friends??)… sounds like the Good Old Boy game runs both ways. I’m sure Ms. Degnan is a very nice person, but just is not able to handle the position she was appointed to do. The Mayor, as leader of the City should be a leader, acknowledge the mistaken hire, and move on. Simple as that. It should not have come to this.

  24. anytime
    October 5, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    Gee whiz, Hilly. Six question marks for DV? What you defensive or something given the great job by Mitt and the poor job by Barry Obama?

  25. Elizabeth
    October 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Hilly whatever….do you honesty think anyone with half a brain would read a liberal piece from the ny times. Get a life.

  26. Ron Kitterman
    October 6, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Dan’s gonna ‘put y’all back in chains’