BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 2, 2015) — Sources connected to District Attorney David Capeless‘ office tell THE PLANET they expect Capeless to “go full bore with criminal charges, and not just a slap on the wrist” in connection with theft charges lodged against just-fired former city cop Jeff Coco. That, of course, remain to be seen.

Sources speaking on a condition of anonymity say Capeless wants Coco to do jail time. The amount of money in question has not been officially confirmed, but it’s believed to be six figures, as high as $250,000. In public statements made after his press release on Coco, Pittsfield Police Chief Mike Wynn used a figure of $150,000. THE PLANET understands that to be a minimum. One informed source says it “won’t go lower but could go a lot higher.”

Will Easy Living Lead to Hard Time?

A PPD source tells THE PLANET, “Oh, and the stories about [Coco’s] ‘drug addication’ were BS. Seems the guy likes to travel like royalty. No Motel 6 for him. Hey, when the money’s [allegedly] stolen, nothing like a Ritz Carlton doorman to say, ‘Welcome, Sir.’” Attempts to reach Coco were not successful.

Several points need to be made.

* THE PLANET first reported on Coco July 27, 2015 —the same month the PPD became aware of the discrepancies in union accounts over which, as president of the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Coco had control.  How come we as a one-man shop can get these stories and the local daily with its entire newsroom cannot? Anyone who has seen the recent film Spotlight knows the difference a crusading daily can make in the community.  Where was The Eagle? Asleep at the wheel again?

* According to a current member of the PPD, Chief Wynn decided to go public with the news on Coco after THE PLANET contacted Wynn Friday night (11/27, 8:51:07, to be exact). The source says without THE PLANET‘s probing, the department, at the mayor’s request, would likely have sat on the information while the case “stumbled its way through the DA’s office.” If this is true, once again THE PLANET has dared to go where the “angels” of the local media fear to tread. We don’t get a cent for this. For Mary Jane and Joe Kapanski, THE PLANET works pro bono.

Whither, Checks and Balances?

* How could the situation have developed? Where were the oversights, the departmental checks and balances? On July 3o, THE PLANET reported that “the case came to the attention of authorities not because of internal oversight but because of the union’s bank. Sources say that after the bank discovered what appeared to be discrepancies in the union accounts, management immediately notified the bank’s board of directors. The board notified public officials.” Why would the bank have to catch the irregularities?

* Who will be held accountable? Are systemic changes required? These will soon be questions for Linda Tyer when she becomes mayor next month. To what extent does the chief have accountability here? Is this simply a union matter that doesn’t involve him? Complicating it for Tyer is that during the campaign, Wynn and Tyer’s communication coordinator, Christina Barrett, were said to be what they call “an item.”

* How much money does the union president control? A look at the union’s tax filings for three years 2010, ’11, and ’12) proves enlightening.

Union’s Tax Filings Reveal Interesting Pattern

In 2011, IBPO Local 447 filed a 990-EZ, “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, … “c/o Jeffrey Coco, 39 Allen St.” The forms lists income of $91,403 from contributions, grants ($88,988), dues ($2,400). and investment income ($15) An aside: A $15 return on $91,388 is — you ready? — 0.00016%, a little more than one-ten-thousandth of a percent. Seems that instead of T. Boone Pickens, the local picked Slim Pickens to call the money shots.

That year, the union rang up $107,208 in expenses for grants paid, “professional fees and other payments to independent contractors” (none specified), rent, and something called “other expenses.” Since the union began 2011 with a $36,731 surplus, it ended tax year 2011 with a balance of $20,926. The document is stamped “RECEIVED DEC 27 2012 OGDEN, UT.”

In 2012, the same document shows the union with $113,149 in income and $120,050 in expenses for a net loss of $6,901. However, it ended the year with a $14,205 surplus! This is up from the relatively modest $68,298 IBPO Local 447 reported as total revenue for tax year 2010. Expenses that year were $67,225, for a surplus of $1,073.

The three years show an interesting pattern:

TOTAL REVENUES: $68,298 (2010), $91,403 (2011), $113,149 (2012). Percent of increase in revenue from 2010 to 2012: 66%

TOTAL EXPENSES: $67,225 (’10), $107,208 (’11), $120,050 (’12). Percent of increase in expenses from ’10 to ’12: 79%

Why were income and expenses subject to such dizzying increases? Where did the money come from, and where did the money go? Investigators will be looking closely.

Good Reporting Gets It Done

THE PLANET took heat from certain city offices for publishing our information on Coco in late July (columns on July 27, 29, 30, available in THE PLANET archives). Nonetheless, our investigations were sound, our sources good, and our reporting accurate.

The PPD Internal Report on Coco

Here is a copy of the internal PPD report filed on the Coco case. It has been redacted.

http://wx.wwlp.com/documents/OfficerCocoreport.pdf

As always in cases of this type, THE PLANET reminds everyone that allegations require proof. Until charges are upheld in court or by proper admission, accused are considered innocent until proven otherwise.

—————————————————————————————————

“There’s an empty place beside me when I’m walking down the street. That’s the place where you used to walk, the place where you held my hand.” — The Fortunes, “Empty Space,” (1966).

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in any comment section 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.