BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THURSDAY, FEB. 18, 2016) — You’ll recall how strongly Dan Bianchi campaigned for his first term on “transparency.” THE PLANET doesn’t have to remind how that turned out. Thus far, however, Linda Tyer has proven the opposite. While mentioning government openness in her campaign, it wasn’t part of her platform rhetoric. As mayor, it appears to be part of her action plan.

On Jan. 19, three city councilors requested Tyer form a “study group … to help determine if it is in the [c]ity’s best interest” to keep operating the Pittsfield Municipal Airport “as a [c]ity function.” Chris Connell (Ward 4), Donna Todd Rivers (5), and Melissa Mazzeo (at large) made the request.

Tyer replied Feb. 5 with a constituting memo. THE PLANET filed a public records request with the mayor’s office two days ago, and the mayor complied on the same day. Here is the councilors’ petition and the mayor’s memo:

Airport Study Committee (dragged) 1    Airport Study Committee (dragged) 2    Airport Study Committee (dragged)

Pay particular attention to the final section of the mayor’s letter, “Meeting Format.” Tyer says the Airport Study Committee (ASC) “must” follow the state’s Open Meeting Law: “You must post notices, keep records of your meetings, and meetings must be open the the public.” THE PLANET sees no wiggle room in “must.”

That wasn’t good enough for one of the ASC members. Can you guess which one?

Shortly after receipt of the mayoral memo, Mazzeo objected to opening the meetings to the public. THE PLANET requested comment to explain her reasoning. She, alone among those contacted, failed to respond to two requests. Did defense of the indefensible prove too challenging for MelMaz?

Legal Opinion Recommends Following the Law

Mazzeo sought a legal opinion from the city attorneys, Donovan and O’Connor. After THE PLANET‘s request, attorney Rich Dohoney sent us a copy of the opinion.

Dohoney wrote: “A body appointed by the Mayor solely for the purpose of advising the Mayor with regard to something the Mayor could do on her own is not subject to the Open Meeting Law See Connelly v. School Committee of Hanover 409 Mass. 232 (1991). The Mayor could study the airport herself. Therefore, I do not find that the Airport Study Committee is required to comply wit the Open Meeting Law.” Seems clear enough, eh?

And it is, until you get to the final sentence: “I do, however, recommend that the Airport Study Committee voluntarily comply with the Open Meeting Law.” Rich, so does THE PLANET. The memo, depending on your point of view, can be read as Solomon-like advice or CYA fence-sitting.

Clearly, the ASC’s work involves a public interest, as determined, for example, with one of the group’s initial findings. In its first meeting, the committee heard testimony from new airport manager Robert Snuck, who reported strange leases signed with the Westwood Business Park on airport property, leases done “under the table.”

The leases favored the businesses and screwed taxpayers — or do you think a 40-year lease at $1 a year is fair compensation? Property next to an airport should be getting at least $2,000 a month in rental. Also, such leases rarely, if ever, go beyond 20 years. We’re talking $40 over 40 years vs. $400,000 over 20. Who made out at whose doing? If nothing demonstrates the need for public oversight, this surely does.

Connell, Rivers Disagree with Mazzeo, Want OML Followed

Mazzeo’s ASC council colleagues, Connell and Rivers, agreed with Tyer that the group should follow the Open Meeting Law. Connell told THE PLANET, “I believe strongly that we should follow the OML. Originally, when we asked the mayor to form this group,  I was under the impression it would act as a … task force to examine the financials of the airport as well as possible options in operating it as a city function. The focus seems to have changed direction. Maybe that is a good thing but its still too early to say.”

Rivers also disagreed with Mazzeo: She called Dohoney’s  opinion too “narrow [an] interpretation of the scope of our duties as a group. … [T]he structure of the group and the depth of the charge before us does not fit the narrow definition of a study group, and as a result I disagree with his opinion and would find that the Committee is subject to the Open Meeting Law. All of this legal interpretation notwithstanding, I quite frankly think that we should always err on the side of following the Open Meeting Law, and I am not sure why the issue even surfaced.”

THE PLANET spoke with Mayor Tyer, who said she was surprised at Mazzeo’s objection.

“I feel strongly about transparency in government,” Tyer said. “I wanted to respect [the three councilors’ interest] in this problem. That’s why I formed the study group.” Tyer called Mazzeo’s objection to an open process “a contradiction.” On the one hand, Tyer says, Mazzeo calls for a public investigation into the airport management but on the other objects to her group’s compliance with the law that would ensure a greater protection of the public’s interest.

THE PLANET agrees. We can see no reasonable objection to the group keeping its deliberations open. Mazzeo’s objection casts suspicion that there is something she wants hidden. If not, then why did Mazzeo object? We asked, but she’s not talking.

Is this the first inevitable official “push back” from “the other side” in Pittsfield never-ending War of the Machines. THE PLANET refers, of course, to the Ruberto-Del Gallo Machine, which includes Tyer, and the Bianchi-Wotjkowski Machine, which counts Mazzeo among its Believers. Is that what’s really behind Mazzeo’s rumpus?

———————————————————————————————

“A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity.” — Dalai Lama

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in the comment section or opinions published within the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not those of PLANET VALENTI or endorsed in any way by PLANET VALENTI; this website reserves the right to remove any comment which violates its Rules of Conduct, and it is not liable for the consequences of any posted comment as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and PLANET VALENTI’s terms of service.