By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEEKEND EDITION, JAN. 9-11, 2015) — Our show last night on PLANET VALENTI TELEVISION we had our Right Honorable Good Friends Chris Connell and Barry Clairmont. We largely focused on the process of government in light of the Article 6 of the new city charter, which says that a mayoral (administrative) proposal has a time clock attached to it. Unless the city council approved or rejects the proposal, the measure automatically goes into effect.

Pittsfield Community Television will be re-broadcasting the show we did live, last night, at four times today (Friday): 11:30 p.m., 3 p.m., 6:30 p.m., and 11 p.m. You can judge for yourself the “performance” — THE PLANET‘s questions and the councilor’s answers. THE PLANET‘s intention was to explore the issue of how the the council managed to let the clock run out on the mayor’s intended realignment of public works and utilities. The mayor introduced his measure on Sept. 2. The council had two months, to Nov. 2, to deal with it or else the move would automatically be in effect.

First, allow a cuppla-three random observations:

* We had thought about asking the councilors to dress casually. THE PLANET doesn’t like, in fact positively dislikes, traditional “debates” with podiums, business suits, scripted questions, stump-speech answers served with lots of starch and butt hairs. We said nothing, and, to our delight, both showed up casually draped — Clairmont with “business casual” and Connell even more impressive with jeans, a black muscle shirt, and an Ozzy Osbourne/Mr. Crowley silver cross. We loved it. For the fashion editors, THE PLANET wore black slacks, a pastel green sweater over a yellow black-striped Tommy short.

* Connell and Clairmont marked only the third time in about 30 lives shows that PV-TV has had guests. The two previous guest turns were done by Terry Kinnas and Chuck Garivaltis.

* Speaking of Kinnas, his name inadvertently popped up on the show’s credits. He was not part of the production staff, though. THE PLANET apologizes for the mistake to the estimable Mr. K.

* The issue of the administrative time-clock, as played out in this particular case involving the mayor’s DPW proposal, has touched a nerve. We received an unusual amount of feedback both prior and especially following the show. People don’t like it that an administrative proposal was allowed to waltz through with citizens, via their representatives, having one at bat.

* Four quick pieces of information that came up last night: (1) Connell said he would be running for re-election in Ward 4; (2) Clairmont said he was not sure of his intentions. When pressed, he said he was leaning to running again but not for his current office. THE PLANET found that most interesting; (3) Connell though that the mayor would be running again for re-election; (4) In the most interesting point of the night, Connell said the mayor should bring back the Administrative Order regarding the DPW to be rescinded. THE PLANET thinks that is a great idea. We would urge our Right Honorable Good Friend to submit a petition to the city council to do just that. Such a petition would allow We the People to better judge which of the 11 councilors are for a government that allows The People a voice through their representatives. By introducing such a petition, Connell would be backing up his statement from last night. If he does not introduce such a petition, it would suggest he wasn’t serious about the antidote to a big mistake. In that case, we would call upon Clairmont or any of the other councilors to introduce such a measure. Yes, it’s that important, as our continuing coverage now tries to demonstrate.

Anatomy of a Gaffee … Or the Revelation of a Plot? Which Is It?

On Sept. 2, the council referred the proposal to the Ordinance and Rules subcommittee. There it languished. In October, city solicitor Kathy Degnan coughed up another hairball. At O&R’s first crack at the mayor’s Administrative Order, she informed O&R chair Connell that she hadn’t prepared properly for O&R to take up the measure. The subcommittee then tabled the move.

Was Degnan’s response an innocent mistake due to incompetence or overwork, or was she part of a larger plan hatched by Mayor Dan Bianchi to stall the measure until after Nov. 3, when it would automatically go into effect? Surely Degnan had to be aware of the 60-day limit. If not, as solicitor, that would be an appalling lack of knowledge and a prodigious display of amateurish ineffectiveness. The only other alternative — we cannot find a realistic third possibility — is that Degnan knew of the time frame but in her role as the mayor’s executioner deliberately didn’t inform either the full council or O&R of that knowledge. That would likely be malfeasance and, if true, likely actionable. This would not be the first time Degnan has — though either incompetence, inability, or some other reason — messed up, with taxpayers being denied of competent representation from the office of solicitor. Such mistakes can be exorbitantly costly.

Connell and Clairmont told THE PLANET last night on the telly that they were not aware of the 60-day provision. To their credit, they both “fell on the sword,” as Connell put it, owning up to their mistake. THE PLANET takes them at their word. We don’t think they knew of the 60-day clock, although they should have. Connell particularly took on added blame as O&R chair. THE PLANET respects that as an honorable action done with integrity. Neither they nor their nine colleagues understood the provisions of the charter well enough. Or did only eight councilors not know? That’s what Clairmont suggested last night.

Clairmont Says Mazzeo Knew in Advance of the Time Clock

Did council president Melissa Mazzeo know in advance that the measure had a time limit and not say anything to her vice president and O&R chair or the other councilors? Last night, Connell said he didn’t know what Mazzeo knew or when. Clairmont, however, said Mazzeo’s own words — uttered in session during a council meeting — indicate that she knew in advance. If that is true, it would strongly suggest she along with Degnan were complicit in the mayor’s plan to enact the measure without risk of council deliberation and therefore eliminating the possibility of legislative defeat.

Below, THE PLANET presents the written responses of Mazzeo, Ward 5 councilor Jonathan Lothrop, Ward 6 councilor John Krol, and Connell on this issue. They were sent to us during our initial investigations of what happened with the automatic enactment of the mayor’s proposal. We present them below, as received (edited only slightly for form). We should point out that in our back and forth with Mazzeo, THE PLANET asked Mazzeo if she was aware of the 60-day provision during the period from Sept. 2 to Nov. 2. She didn’t not answer.

The good thing to come out of our discussion last night, which in effect was an autopsy in what went wrong, was the learning experience. THE PLANET learned a lot as did our viewers. Connell said that type of time-crunched oversight would never happen again. That is progress.

Now here are the responses of the four councilors.

 ——– 000 ——–

MELISSA MAZZEO

There was not a “major gaffe.” That would mean an error or blunder. The new charter has been used many times now to dictate actions such as the Mayor has to have a joint meeting with School and Council on the budget with in a period of time etc. Councilors are aware of these times and hold the administration to it, which they should. This particular order also has a time constraint. Councilors need to be aware of agenda items and be mindful when dealing with them. We seem to be getting into a pattern where we spend an unusual amount of time on what some may consider minor issues at the council meeting, yet important items like an Administrative Order get refereed off to a subcommittee with no discussion first to see if it really should be sent off. Some councilors wanted to hold myself as President and the Committee chair responsible for not telling everyone about the time issue. We are all equal here in that we are councilors and have jobs to do — read each and every agenda item and do your due diligence. If that had occurred here, many would have read the charter about dealing with Administrative Orders. I can recall councilors talking about the fact that we cannot amend these orders, only vote them up or down, which is true. In the same paragraph, it outlines the time frame in which to deal with them. This is the second time that the council has allowed something to go into effect because of inaction. They tabled items and left them there. So while I don’t think this is how orders should become effective, it’s not my job to make sure each councilor is reading and understanding the charter. I will give information when needed or asked, but it’s not in the President’s rules to make sure the councilors are doing their homework.

——– 000 ——–

JONATHAN LOTHROP

The DPW reorganization that was voted on and defeated by the Council was subsequently approved through what amounts to a “slight of hand.”

The extended process could be viewed as an attempt to intentionally drag their feet beyond the 60 days in order to ensure it’s passage.  Evidence #1. When the matter was referred to the October Ordinances and Rules Committee, the matter was not right and “not ready.” By agreement of the Solicitor all matters related to the organizational changes were tabled.   This was surprising as the City Solicitor essentially admitted that what she sent is was incorrect.  So it was tabled.

Evidence #2. The next O&R Committee meeting was moved from it’s usual first Monday of the month to November 17th which had the effect of guaranteeing that it could not come back to the full Council until the 60 day window had expired.  This guarantees it’s passage by way of the new Charter.

Based on my observation of the last meetings discussion, at no time did Council President Mazzeo indicate that she too was unaware of the 60 day rule.  In fact. she referred to “leeway” to the 60 day rule was “granted by the Mayor.”   It’s was only when the matter was defeated by the full Council did we learn, several days after the meeting, that the matter was effectively approved, due to the Council not acting on it within 60 days.

Who is the Mayor or the Council President to grant leeway?  The Charter does not grant them this power.

Further, the President noted that there is no recourse to this process.  At no time during the extensive debate at the second November meeting did anyone state we were past our 60 days?  Is this another example of either not knowing the rules, or sitting quiet about these facts because the figured it would be approved anyway.   During the extensive debate there is not a peep from the Solicitor, the Council President or the Mayor.  Sort of makes yu feel intentionally duped.

The issues of administrative Order’s and a timeline are new in the Charter.  Previously, there was no timeline requirement for passage.  The current Charter says 60 days.  Not one Councilor mentioned the timeline requirement at any time during the entire process.  Lastly, this is only the second time this issue of a timeline has come into effect in the Council in my 11 years, both in this past term.

——– 000 ——–

JOHN KROL

I do not presume to know motives for the actions of others, therefore, I won’t assign them.

What I do know is that the outcome of this has once again left this council impotent, unable to perform the basic duties the citizens of Pittsfield should expect and deserve. This leveraging of the 60-day rule is not consistent with a spirit of good government that includes a strong check and balance. The significant change in the structure and operation of a city department must earn city council approval. Council approval was needed when Mayor Ruberto sought to make changes per John Barrett’s recommendations, and the administration made its case successfully to the council. This time around, any delay in a final decision on this item had to do with the administration’s lack of information in the original proposal, and then, the canceling of subcommittee meetings by the council vice president. When the item was tabled at the previous council meeting, it was because there seemed to be confusion within the administration. This change was being sought, and yet, interviews were being conducted to hire a Commissioner of Public Services (consistent with the current structure – the “Barrett structure”). Any delay had nothing to do with the “burying” of an administrative order, as President Mazzeo suggested multiple times last night for the necessity of the 60-day rule.

You can spin it any way you want to justify this: “The council didn’t follow the rules,” “We’re still learning the new charter,” etc. However, the bottom-line is that the council president and vice president seemed to be content with the council losing its legislative power. This was also the case with the mayor’s power plays on 100 North Street and the health insurance switch. I would have hoped that the president and vice president would have fought to ensure that the council fulfill its rightful role in the legislative process. This did not happen.

In addition, our previous council meeting was after the 60 day window. In this case, President Mazzeo said the mayor was giving us “leeway.” This raises the situation to a completely new level of strangeness. If the charter does provide for a 60-day window, the mayor somehow has an ability to give “leeway” on this? He provided “leeway” last time, but not this time? How is this “leeway” communicated to the council? As I said last night, this entire thing is bizarre.

——– 000 ——–

CHRIS CONNELL

Dan, I cancelled the November 3rd O&R meeting at the request of the city solicitor due to her being in Boston that day. Given the fact that there were 13 new as well as 15 tabled items most of which the solicitor would have to address,  I felt the need to postpone the meeting to the next available time that she could be present.  IT WAS NOT done to promote anyone’s agenda.  I would not be part of doing that for any person. The meeting was held on November 17th whereby the sub-committee discussed and voted on all of the items tabling only Barry’s petition during the three and a half hour meeting. At the November 25th council meeting members of the O&R subcommittee asked me to cancel the Dec 1st meeting due to the fact that there would be NO new business and only one tabled item. The fact that the administration order from the mayor had a timeframe attached to it was an oversight and obviously a lesson learned that the full council should refrain from sending administration orders to subcommittees because of meeting only once a month. This was not a conspiracy. Frankly, I think all some individuals want to do is continuously stir the pot and avoid working for the city and its residents. I ran for public office to serve the public and I WILL continue to do just that.

——– 000 ——–

The Process of Government Is As Important as its Policies

This is an inquiry into the process of government. The particular issue is irrelevant. In other words, the Administrative Order could just as easily been about piainting all sidewalks in the city pink. The importance is that, as Mazzeo indicates, this “approval”-without-deliberation has happened twice now. This, on top of the mayor’s penchant for unilateral action in outright defiance of council input, makes what happened with the DPW measure something that cannot be allowed to happen again.

There has been an alarming and dangerous lack of collegiality coming from the corner office. It needs to be checked. There are three ways to do this. The first is by the legislative branch of local government — the city council — to reassert itself as the mayor’s co-governor. The second is for a new occupant to be placed in the corner office, a person who is not so inclined to ignore his or her responsibilities to citizens. The third is for Mary Jane and Joe Kapanski to rise up in great numbers on election days in September and November of this year and — as the quaint street expression puts it — “trow da bums out.”

THE PLANET first exposed this issue. Last night on television, we led the autopsy. We don’t think this mistake will happen again. If it was a conspiracy, it can’t happen again. We could call upon our Right Honorable Good Friends to take corrective action. We call upon one councilor, any councilor, to introduce a petition to be voted up or down by the membership that requests the mayor to rescind the Administrative Order on DPW so that it can be properly handled, this time with We The People having their say.

—————————————————————————————

“Anytime at all, all you gotta do is call, and I’ll be there.” — The Beatles, “Anytime At All,” (1964).

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.