BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE MONDAY APRIL 9, 2018) — Is it a dogfight or a catfight that has hamstrung the Sonsini Animal Shelter? Since the principals in the battle are women, THE PLANET will go for the latter. Krista Wroldson Miller, chair of the Friends of Sonsini, claims the mayor ended the group’s contract with Pittsfield without cause. Mayor Linda Tyer hasn’t said much per orders of city attorney Rich Dohoney but she stands by the decision.

Stacey Rossi, attorney for Miller and the Friends, says “the controversy between Friends of Eleanor Sonsini Animal Shelter and Mayor Tyer is not a legal matter. No lawsuit has been filed against the mayor of the city by Friends.” She adds that Friends “has no plans to file suit, either.” The barrister added a “however,” however, saying the shelter “does not accept the termination of the contract as valid, believes it is a breach, and wants to see it rescinded.” Rossi says the shelter “plans to fully honor is agreement to vacate the city premises at the end of this month …”

Rossi sent a message titled “Final Position Statement” to each city council member at 8 a.m. Saturday. It has more contradictions than a s-s-t-tutterer doing voice over for a Manga cartoon. That could be reflective of a muddled case, or it might be a deliberate legal strategy to set up something to come.  Let THE PLANET annotate:

First, Rossi says the “controversy … is not a legal matter.” We give Rossi credit for her honesty in acknowledging the matter as a “controversy,” but doesn’t she know about denotations and connotations? “Controversy” suggests a client embroiled in wrongdoing. Neither Perry Mason nor Owen Marshall (or E.G. Marshall, for that matter) would speak for a client and call this a controversy. “Situation” would be a better word.

Second, she claims it’s “not a legal matter.” We point out that a contract was terminated, not an oral agreement or an oral dentifrice. That by definition makes this a legal matter. So does the fact that she and Dohoney are involved. So does her insistence that the mayor acted improperly in ending the pact.

Third, after telling councilors that Tyer acted improperly, she says the Friends will “fully honor” getting the boot by leaving. THE PLANET wonders why she would advise her client to do that in light of the claim — unsubstantiated, as far as we can fathom — the city terminated the deal without cause (how else can you read “does not accept the termination as valid”)? Why wouldn’t Friends fight the termination if they believe it has been wrongly imposed? Since Rossi says the Friends have not and will not sue Tyer or the city, what is their basis for contending the cancelation?

Where is the truth here? THE PLANET must echo Pilate: “What is truth?” More has to be revealed (or uncovered) before we can venture there. Our major concern is the animals. What will happen to them? As of now, it seems the city’s only plan is to have animal control officer Joe Chague care for the shelter animals, but that would be in addition to his regular job. Sonsini, according to staffers, has never operated with fewer than two FULL TIME staffers. Given his current work load, it doesn’t seem possible for Chague to handle these new duties properly.

Miller puts it bluntly: “Animals will die, and we will be gone and unable to stop it.”

The death of one animal will be acceptable.

It could be the circumstance that makes it, indeed, a legal matter.

———————————————————————————————

“April is the cruelest month / breeding lilacs out of the dead land” — T. S. Eliot, opening to Pt. I, “The Waste Land”

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The Usual Disclaimer.