By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEEKEND EDITION, NOV. 7-9, 2014) — In honor of nothing and everything, THE PLANET features the lines of a poem we recently wrote inspired by Percy Shelley‘s “Ode to Liberty.” As with “transparency,” liberty is a concept that TES finds scary and threatening in the extreme. As to precisely why, we shall leave that to the armchair psychologists. Suffice it to say that what MTV is to teenage girls, liberty and transparency are to the mayor.

With that preamble behind us and the glorious weekend having begun and existing mostly ahead of us, we present our humble work.

——– 000 ——–

THE RECALL: AN ODE TO HOPE or A HEAVEN OF GIDDY STORMS: A PITTSFIELD TALE

By DAN VALENTI

I

A bedraggled people endure once again

the bungling of the mayor: to have hope expire and die

from heart to heart, from precinct to precinct, over wards in vain,

scattering wasted votes like buckshot fired into the sky.

Their souls one day, we pray, will spurn the chains of their dismay,

and in the recall vote of TES that won’t take long

find their dignity, Mary Jane and Joe — sublime and strong.

We The People and The Little Guy, serene, shall spring forth

from the mayoral nightmare, who in the political abyss shall be hurled

while recovery shoots to the ceiling of hope, finding its worth

on that island of sanity in the ocean of the city’s mad political world. 

II

This divine municipal universe,

granted, is now a curse

for hope and freedom were not: but power from “worse” producing “worst,”

The Suits and TES, with the spirit of beasts kindled there,

of suckups and of other “watery” forms —

but there is war among them … and despair

within them, for We the People will one day sue without truce or terms

to reclaim the body of the sacred, violated dream.

And The People said, “Let their beasts war on beasts, their worms on worms

their men on men. As for us, our hearts shall be a heaven of giddy storms.” 

——– 000 ——–

As always on POETRY WEEKEND, THE PLANET invites your comments, opinions, and views not just on the poem but upon any topic of your choosing. In keeping with out tradition, by definition there can be no topic off limits and not subject off topic. All we ask is to keep it clean and above board.

———————————————————————

Secretary of State Galvin’s Office Finds Degnan Negligent Re: Clairmont’s Request for Public Records

Now we share some breaking news.

One of THE PLANET’s Z-Agents uncovered this while mining the state’s website. It’s a letter from Shawn Williams, supervisor of records for the secretary of state’s office. The letter is addressed to city solicitor Kathy Degnan (and, of course, by extension, the mayor). The subject of the letter is an appeal by councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont‘s regarding his initial request for public records on 100gate.

The large finding is that Degnan and the city (read “The Mayor”) failed in its job as custodian of the public records to respond correctly to Clairmont’s request. The letter, dated Nov. 5, 2014, orders Degnan “to provide all remaining responsive records” to Clairmont.

The wording from the secretary of state’s office is bureaucratic polite-speak for: “Hey, you crud — We found you guilty of evasion. Send the info right quick, if you know what’s good for you.”

Here is the text in full:

——– 000 ——–

LETTERHEAD OF

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division

Shawn A. Williams
Supervisor of Records

Ms. Kathleen E. Degnan, Esq.
City of Pittsfield
Office of the City Solicitor
70 Allen Street, Suite 200
Pittsfield, MA 01201

Dear City Solicitor Degnan:

November 5, 2014

SPR14/500

I have received the petition of Barry Clairmont appealing the response of the City of
Pittsfield (City) to his September 2, 2014 request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(b ); see also
950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, Mr. Clairmont requested copies of email and written
communications between City departments regarding rental space located at 100 North Street.

In an October 7, 2014 telephone conversation with an attorney on my staff, you stated
that in its initial disclosure of responsive records, the City inadvertently failed to provide Mr. Clairmont with copies of all records responsive to his request. You further stated that the City subsequently provided Mr. Clairmont with copies of responsive records. 

It is important to note that it is the duty of a record custodian to use her superior knowledge of the records to assist a
requester in obtaining the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.05(4).

In his petition to this office, Mr. Clairmont stated that the City provided duplicate copies
of certain records and copies of unresponsive records. In response, you informed this office that the City provided Mr. Clairmont with copies of requested records, and furthermore, the City removed duplicate copies of the responsive records and did not charge Mr. Clairmont for copies of duplicate records.

Right of Access; Fees

In his petition Mr. Clairmont also noted that he is a member of the City Council. Please
note that Mr. Clairmont’s personal status as a member of the City Council does not afford any
greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. Access to a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requester. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976).

Mr. Clairmont also queried whether a custodian of records could charge a City Council
member for copies of public records. As the identity of the requester has no bearing upon the public status of records, likewise it has no bearing on whether any fees should be assessed.

Attorney-Client Privilege

In an October 15, 2014 telephone conversation with my staff attorney, you stated that the
City withheld two responsive records pursuant to the common law attorney-client privilege.

The Public Records Law states that “the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995).

The response by the City did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to
public records, as this denial was not provided in writing to Mr. Clairmont. To comply with the specificity requirement a records custodian must cite an exemption, and specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. I find your telephone conversation with my staff did not satisfy this burden with respect to the City’s attorney-client privilege claim.
Accordingly, the City is hereby ordered to provide all remaining responsive records in a
manner consistent with this decision and the Public Records Law. If the City intends to withhold any records pursuant to the common law attorney-client privilege, Mr. Clairmont must be provided with a privilege index, as mandated by the Supreme Judicial Court. See Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc., v. Div. of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 44, 460 (2008).

This administrative appeal is now closed.

Very Truly Yours,

Shawn A. Williams
Supervisor of Records

cc: Mr. Barry Clairmont

——– 000 ——–

And so we find The Bianchi Administration, again, red-handed with its hands in the Cookie Jar of Obfuscation and Dishonor, a lack of transparency, and caught in the act of trying to dodge a fair and honest request for public documents.

No surprise there, eh? Who’s for storming the gates of city hall and initiating a coup?

Have a great weekend, everybody!

——————————————————————————————–

“I saw a handsome parish lady make her entrance like a queen. Why, she was totally chenille, and her old man was a Marine.” — Frank Zappa, “St. Alfonzo’s Pancake Breakfast,” (1974).

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.