Berkshire Blog®™

Westfield Magistrate Lets Driver Walk in Hit-Run

2012-01-24T01:39:00.031-05:00

Nathan A. Byrnes

Assistant Clerk-Magistrate
Westfield District Court, Westfield, Massachusetts
"There was no probable cause found to go a step further."
-- Meredith Nilan's attorney, Timothy J. Shugrue

-------------------------------

Reprinted from The Berkshire Eagle:

'No charges filed in December car, pedestrian accident'

By Andrew Amelinckx, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Wednesday January 18, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- No criminal charges will be filed against a 24-year-old driver in connection with a December accident that left a city man with severe injuries, according to the driver's lawyer.

Meredith Nilan's attorney, Timothy J. Shugrue, said a 2 1/2-hour "full evidentiary hearing" before Assistant Clerk Magistrate Nathan A. Byrnes from the Westfield District Court was held on Thursday.

"There was no probable cause found to go a step further," Shugrue said on Tuesday.

The Pittsfield Police filed applications for criminal complaints in district court against Meredith Nilan, the daughter of Clifford Nilan, who is the chief of probation at Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield.

Police planned on charging her with two misdemeanors: leaving the scene of a personal injury accident and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

According to police, Meredith Nilan, driving her father's 2001 Subaru Forester, swerved into the other lane and struck Peter Moore while he jogged with his dog on Winesap Road near East Street in Pittsfield on the evening of Dec. 8.

Meredith Nilan told police she was on her way to meet her boyfriend for dinner when she hit either a dog or a deer. She stopped, but didn't find anything she hit. She then returned home and went out with her father looking for evidence of what she may have hit, but couldn't find anything, according to her attorney. Clifford Nilan later called police to report the accident.

Moore, who left the scene after being hit and didn't seek medical attention until early the next morning, suffered a fractured calf bone and a broken vertebra, a bruised colon, trauma to the left side of his body, a concussion and abrasions "from head to toe."

"It was an accident," Shugrue said, adding that his client "feels bad someone was hurt."

Pittsfield Police Capt. John Mullin declined to comment on the case.

The hearing was held Thursday morning, but show-cause hearings are off-limits to the press and public.

The clerk who heard the case was not familiar with anyone involved, according to Shugrue.

Shugrue said it would be up to a district court judge whether to allow an appeal of not.

"Nothing has been filed as of this [Tuesday] afternoon to my knowledge," said Shugrue. "This should be the end of it." <<<<<

Nilan 'Hit-and-Run' Victim Peter Moore

2012-01-19T11:44:00.079-05:00

(Photograph #1 - Click on image to enlarge.)

By G.M. Heller
Published: Thursday, January 19, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- A massive swelling the size of a half grapefruit is plainly evident on the cranium of 'hit-and-run' accident victim Peter Moore, shown here recovering in a Berkshire Medical Center hospital bed. An overhead fluorescent light clearly outlines the contours of Moore's severe head injury received when Moore, jogging the evening of December 8, 2011 along a well-lit section of Winesap Road in 'The Orchards' neighborhood of Pittsfield, was hit head-on and catapulted nearly face-first into the windshield of an SUV driven at a high rate of speed by Meredith Nilan, 24, a neighbor living just down the same street.

The impact left the SUV's windshield with a head-sized hole (seen close-up below), along with the vehicle's front-end damaged and dented. Moore himself sustained injuries that were extensive, including a concussion, fractured calf bone, a broken vertebra, a bruised colon, trauma to the left side of his body, and abrasions "from head to toe," according to the report filed by Pittsfield police. The 2001 Subaru Forester is registered to Ms. Nilan's father, Clifford J. Nilan, chief probation officer at Berkshire Superior Court Probation Department in Pittsfield.

(Photograph #2 - Click on image to enlarge.)

(Photograph #3 - Click on image to enlarge.)

A large round hole is evidence of the intensity of the impact made by Peter Moore's face and forehead into the center of the SUV's windshield.
Photo Credit: PLANET VALENTI

(Photograph #4 - Click on image to enlarge.)

Front-end damage, including missing grillework and severe hood indentations on a 2001 Subaru Forester registered to Clifford J. Nilan of Pittsfield, is evidence of the SUV's head-on collision with jogger Peter Moore. The accident vehicle is shown here photographed in The Nilan's driveway at 72 Winesap Road in Pittsfield. Nilan's daughter, Meredith, is fighting charges she was driving and struck Moore head-on, then drove off. Moore lives around the corner on McIntosh Drive.
(Compare the damaged Subaru Forester's hood and grillework to the photograph below of the same year model Subaru in mint condition.)
Photo Credit: PLANET VALENTI

(Photograph #5 - Click photo to enlarge.)

A 2001 Subaru Forester SUV for sale at Alibaba.com of approximately the same color and style as that of the SUV that struck Peter Moore head-on, then sped off.
Photo Credit: Alibaba.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Probation Chief's Kin Gets Preferential Treatment in 'Hit-and-Run' Case

2012-01-14T07:14:00.200-05:00

Courtroom Cover-Up: Nilan 'Hit-and-Run' Hearing Closed to Public
Pittsfield's GOB Democrats Protecting Their Own
Hearing Date Kept Secret -- Patronage Appointee Speranzo Presiding
Probation Chief Nilan 'Pulling Strings' AGAIN?

by G.M. Heller
Published: Saturday, January 14, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- "The date of that hearing is not being made public," according to blogger Dan Valenti referring to the magistrate's hearing in the case involving Meredith Nilan, 24, a risk assessor at Berkshire Bank and daughter of Superior Court probation chief Clifford J. Nilan, alleged to be the driver of an SUV involved in a hit-and-run accident that severely injured a local jogger, Peter Moore, and tore fur from Moore's dog.

The accident left Moore broken and bleeding on a neighborhood street in Pittsfield the evening of December 8, 2011 (see below for a list of Moore's reported injuries detailed by blogger Valenti).

Writing in this past Thursday's (January 12) edition of PlanetValenti.com, Valenti also reports that the court hearing, which will determine whether a criminal complaint should issue against Ms. Nilan, "apparently, will not be open to the public."

According to Valenti, the Pittsfield Police Department took more than a month to issue a citation against Ms. Nilan for the accident that took place along Winesap Road not far from where the subdivision road meets East Street. The citation is dated January 10, 2012; the alleged hit-and-run occurred December 8, 2011.

> Clifford J. Nilan, chief probation officer, Berkshire Superior Court, alleged owner of SUV involved in hit-and-run that severely injured jogger Peter Moore and his dog early in the evening December 8, 2011. >

According to The Berkshire Eagle, the accident vehicle, a 2001 Subaru Forester, is registered to Ms. Nilan's father, Clifford J. Nilan, whose official title is Chief Probation Officer for Berkshire Superior Court Probation Department in Pittsfield.

In 2010, Mr. Nilan, was one of those investigated by the Massachusetts Probation Department in the 'pay-for-play' scandal alleging improprieties, patronage hiring, and other irregularities in MPD under the administration of longtime commissioner, John J. O’Brien.

According to The Eagle's published report from November 11, 2010 written by reporter Conor Berry, Mr. Nilan was "admonished for mishandling the case of Angelo C. Stracuzzi, the former CEO of Greylock Federal Credit Union."

Berry wrote: "The Supreme Judicial Court appointed Paul F. Ware, a high-profile Boston attorney, to lead an independent probe of the (probation) department after a May (2010) report by the Boston Globe (Spotlight Team) uncovered alleged improprieties in the Probation Department."

In a statement issued at the time by the Mass. Probation Department and reported in The Eagle, MPD's investigators wrote: "The (Stracuzzi) case was misclassified and did not follow probation standards, which require avoidance of any actions that suggest or imply a lack of impartiality and avoidance of any conflict of interest."

Berry reported: "Stracuzzi resigned from the Pittsfield-based (Greylock Federal) credit union in June (2010) after The Eagle exposed his criminal background and personal and professional relationship with (Clifford J.) Nilan, a member of Greylock's board of directors while Stracuzzi was on probation with Nilan's department."

Berry also wrote: "Although Nilan was reprimanded for failing to follow proper protocol, state Probation Department officials in Boston declined to divulge details of his punishment, which they stated remains a confidential personnel matter. Nilan is still employed by the Massachusetts Trial Court."

According to Berry, "Following a review of Stracuzzi's case, which was transferred from Maine to Berkshire Superior Court in 2005, probation officials now acknowledge the case 'was not handled in compliance with the practices, policies and guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.'"

< Meredith Nilan, alleged driver in hit-and-run that severely injured jogger Peter Moore and his dog early in the evening December 8, 2011; daughter of Berkshire Superior Court probation chief Clifford J. Nilan .

Fast forward 13 months to January 2012 and Clifford J. Nilan, referred to by blogger Valenti as a Pittsfield "Good Ol' Boy," is back in the news, apparently taking "actions that suggest or imply a lack of impartiality" and failing yet again to avoid appearance "of any conflict of interest," this time in a matter closer to home -- literally -- involving his eldest daughter and a vehicle registered to him alleged to have struck a pedestrian before speeding off.

This past Thursday, January 12, PlanetValenti.com reports:
"(Meredith) Nilan was cited with two misdemeanors. A clerk magistrate will conduct a hearing to determine if there’s enough evidence to charge Ms. Nilan. Clerk Mag (sic) of the Central Berkshire District Court -- Superior Court -- is none other than Chris 'No Show' Speranzo. As you recall, this was one of the scenarios outlined as a concern when No Show quit as state rep to walked into a stacked vote to receive his lifetime $110,000 job: That he would be a GOB friend on the inside for just such situations, that is, if the GOBs needed a favor from inside the courts. THE PLANET is not suggesting that Speranzo is incapable of making an honest and fair judgment. He should understand, though, that all eyes will be upon him to render justice, not inside favors, for the daughter of a GOB’s GOB. The magistrate will determine if there is enough evidence to send it to trial. If not, it just goes away, no harm, no foul."

> Christopher N. Speranzo, newly-appointed Clerk Magistrate, Central Berkshire District Court in Pittsfield; a Democrat patronage appointee of Gov. Deval Patrick. >

Valenti goes on to report:
"(Meredith) Nilan’s father is Central Berkshire probation chief Clifford 'Cliffy' Nilan. THE PLANET considers instructive this piece of recent local history: When (Clifford) Nilan learned that his buddy, then president of Greylock Federal Credit Union, Angelo Stracuzzi, had been arrested in July 2005 on consecutive days, charged by Biddeford, Maine, police with four counts involving the molestation of teenage boys, (Clifford) Nilan said and did nothing, either as an officer of the court or as a member of the Greylock board. (Clifford) Nilan said nothing. We know this from the testimony of Greylock VP John Bissell. Bissell said when the story broke and — as far as we know, continues to say — that for five years, the Greylock Board had no idea their chief had become embroiled in scandal."

Valenti then poses this question, "Did Nilan use his influence to obtain favorable ..... treatment for a friend?"

Valenti lists what he alleges are "facts" in the case alleging Meredith Nilan's hit-and-run:
-- "Police issued a criminal citation for two misdemeanors: leaving the scene of a personal injury accident and negligent operation of a motor vehicle."
-- "Moore lost a large amount of blood, a broken leg, broken vertebrae, bruises, trauma to the left side of his body, a concussions (sic), and cuts all over his body. In short, he suffered catastrophic injuries. This was no brush-by, oops, sorry, see ya’ later. A man was almost killed."
-- "Though Ms. Nilan was the driver, her father owns the car. A Pittsfield detective source tells THE PLANET that 'charges could be coming against [Cliff Nilan]. Ms. Nilan’s lawyer, Tim Shugrue (former candidate for District Attorney), admits that his client and her father went back to the scene of the accident, looking for evidence." Valenti poses what he calls a "fair question": "Did they remove, alter, hide, or in any other way tamper with evidence?"

Valenti asks more questions: "As reported by the Berkshire Eagle, photos of the vehicle showed a head-sized hole in the windshield and dents in the hood. (Clifford J.) Nilan called police at 9:30 on the night of Dec. 8, 90 minutes after the accident. He told them his daughter hit 'either a dog or deer.' Why did he make that phone call? Ms. Nilan is of age. She holds a responsible job. She’s an adult. Why didn’t she get on the blower to speak to the police? Was she too discombobulated? Was she too upset? Was she too inebriated? Was she too used to daddy cleaning up her messes? Was it something else?" asks Valenti.

Valenti asks: "Was there alcohol involved? It has been reported that Ms. Nilan’s speeding, northbound car 'swerved' into the southbound lane. Is 'swerve' code for DUI? That same evening, Dec. 8, Berkshire Young Professionals, a sub-group of the Berkshire Chamber of Commerce, had a 'Networking Social' at Allium Restaurant in Great Barrington. Was she drinking? The social has listed hours of 5 to 7 p.m. The accident occurred that night at about 8:15 p.m. Have police interviewed people who were there?"

Valenti: "The police account of the accident and Ms. Nilan’s differ in many respects. She says it occurred at 9 p.m. Police say 8:15. She says it took place on East Street and McIntosh Road. (Berkshire Blog editor's note: The Eagle reports "Meredith Nilan told police she was on her way to meet her boyfriend for dinner about 9 p.m., when she hit either a dog or deer near the intersection of Winesap Road and McIntosh Drive.") Police found no evidence there. Moore, the victim, said it happened at the corner of East and Winesap. There, police found lots of blood and some dog fur. Who is telling the truth?" asks Valenti.

One thing Valenti forgets to mention is that The Nilan residence is just down the street from where Mr. Moore and his dog had their alleged run-in with the Nilan's SUV; it's a neighborhood where Meredith Nilan has been raised for the past 22 of her 24 years.

According to Yahoo! Maps, the distance from The Nilan's driveway to the spot where Mr. Moore and his dog were allegedly struck by the Nilan SUV going north (traveling at what Mr. Moore said was "a high rate of speed" and swerving) measures approximately o.2 miles -- 1,056 feet -- a spanse that takes just 20.6 seconds to cover at 35 miles-per-hour.
SEE: Yahoo! Map showing site of alleged hit-and-run involving Nilan SUV relative to location of the Nilan residence.

To the list of facts and questions posed by Mr. Valenti, add the following observation: The Nilans have lived at their Winesap Road address for more than 22 years, moving in when daughter Meredith was about two years old. Ms. Nilan has therefore grown up in this small neighborhood, a subdivision known as 'The Orchards'.

As such, the lady likely knows the neighborhood as well as anyone else who's lived in The Orchards for over two decades.

Ms. Nilan’s statement to police that she believed she "hit either a dog or deer," when in fact it was a dog and a man, could be construed as de facto admission by Ms. Nilan that she was, for as yet unexplained reasons, impaired and highly disoriented that night.

What factors caused Meredith Nilan to be in such condition at quarter after 8 on a Thursday eve? <<<<<

SEE:
"MORE QUESTIONS RAISED IN MEREDITH NILAN HIT-’N-RUN CASE"
by Dan Valenti, PlanetValenti.com, January 12, 2012.
ALSO SEE:
"Alleged: Pittsfield Probation Chief's SUV in Hit-and-Run; Daughter a Suspect"
by G.M. Heller, Berkshire Blog, January 08, 2012.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from The Berkshire Eagle:

Police connect SUV to hit-and-run accident

By Andrew Amelinckx, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Wednesday, January 11, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- Police say they have connected an SUV owned by the county's chief probation officer and driven by his daughter to a hit-and-run accident last month that seriously injured a man jogging with his dog on a city road.

Police believe Meredith Nilan was heading north in her father Clifford Nilan's 2001 Subaru Forester on Winesap Road the evening of Dec. 8 when she swerved into the southbound lane and struck Peter Moore, who was headed north, according to a Pittsfield Police accident report.

"We have a driver, we have a victim and we have a vehicle," said Pittsfield Police Capt. John Mullin.

A criminal citation for two misdemeanors -- leaving the scene of a personal injury accident and negligent operation of a motor vehicle -- were lodged against Meredith Nilan in District Court.

The case will go before a clerk magistrate for a show-cause hearing to determine if there's enough evidence to charge Meredith Nilan. If no probable cause is found, the charges would be dismissed. If probable cause is found, a court arraignment would take place. The hearing date, as well as the hearing itself, is not public information.

Nilan's and Moore's accounts of where and when the accident took place on Winesap Road differed, but police determined Moore's description of the accident site was correct. Police used a search warrant to inspect the car during their investigation.

About 8:15 p.m. on Dec. 8, Peter Moore was hit by a car while jogging with his dog on Winesap Road near East Street. He suffered a fractured calf bone and a broken vertebrae, a bruised colon, trauma to the left side of his body, a concussion, and abrasions "from head to toe."

Meredith Nilan told police she was on her way to meet her boyfriend for dinner about 9 p.m., when she hit either a dog or deer near the intersection of Winesap Road and McIntosh Drive.

Her attorney, Timothy J. Shugrue, said on Friday that she isn't sure what she hit and that she went back to the site with her father, but they couldn't find any evidence of what she may have hit. Clifford Nilan later called police to report the accident.

The intersection where Meredith Nilan told police she struck something is south of where police say they found a large amount of blood and dog fur and where Moore said he was struck by a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. Moore was unable to give a description of the vehicle that hit him.

Moore walked home and went to bed without reporting what happened. Early the next morning, he went to Berkshire Medical Center where he was treated for his injuries and released nearly a week later.<<<<<

SEE:
'Police connect SUV to hit-and-run accident'
by Andrew Amelinckx, The Berkshire Eagle, Wednesday, January 11, 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Alleged: Pittsfield Probation Chief's SUV in Hit-and-Run; Daughter a Suspect

2012-01-08T13:56:00.110-05:00

Peter Moore, shown here recovering at Berkshire Medical Center, was the victim of a hit-and-run driver the evening of December 8, 2011 while jogging with his dog along Winesap Road near his Pittsfield home. Here, registered nurse Amy Ruef scans Moore's medical bracelet used to track and dispense his medication. Photo Credit: Ben Garver / Berkshire Eagle Staff

Three attendees at a 'Happy Hour' for Berkshire Young Professionals held December 8, 2011 at Allium Restaurant in Great Barrington, MA. The event, billed as a 'Networking Social', attracted at least seventeen persons including, L-R: Brent White, Meredith Nilan and Alfred E. 'Alf' Barbalunga. Photograph above is reprinted from BYP's Facebook page which claims the photo was taken during the event.
According to BYP's official invitation, posted to BYP's Facebook page, and reproduced below, the social event was scheduled to go from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.. The 'hit-and-run' accident on Winesap Road in Pittsfield, which is alleged to have involved an SUV driven by Ms. Nilan, took place at approximately 8:15 p.m.. The SUV, reported to be a 2001 Subaru Forester, is registered to Ms. Nilan's father, Clifford J. Nilan, chief of probation at Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield.
SEE: BYP - Facebook photo

December 2011 "Invitation to 'Networking Social'" posted to BYP's Facebook page:
"Join the Berkshire Young Professionals for their December Networking Social at Allium tomorrow (Thursday, 12/8) from 5-7 pm. FREE for BYP Membership Cardholders or for those with a Holiday Wish gift. $5 for all others. To register, email Christine Hoyt at the Berkshire Chamber of Commerce or call 413.499.4000 x10."
SEE: BYP - Facebook Page

ALSO SEE: "Probation Chief's Kin Gets Preferential Treatment in 'Hit-and-Run' Case"
by G.M. Heller, Berkshire Blog, January 14, 2011.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from The Berkshire Eagle:

Cloud surrounds alleged hit-and-run

By Andrew Amelinckx, Berkshire Eagle Staff,
Saturday January 7, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- A car owned by a chief probation officer and driven by his daughter is at the center of a police investigation into an alleged hit-and-run accident early last month that left a man with severe injuries.

< Clifford J. Nilan, Chief of Probation, Berkshire Superior Court

The Pittsfield Police obtained a search warrant to look for any evidence that might definitively tie the 2001 Subaru Forester registered to Clifford J. Nilan and driven by his 24-year-old daughter, Meredith, to a hit-and-run accident on Winesap Road in Pittsfield on the evening of Dec. 8.

Peter Moore, who was hit by a car while jogging with his dog, suffered a fractured calf bone and a broken vertebrae, a bruised colon, trauma to the left side of his body, a concussion, and abrasions "from head to toe."

Attorney Timothy J. Shugrue, who is representing Meredith Nilan and who he called "a great kid," said it is an ongoing investigation and no criminal charges have been filed.

> Meredith Nilan, alleged driver of hit-and-run vehicle. >

The search warrant documents, which were issued from Southern Berkshire District Court in Great Barrington, were obtained by The Eagle on Friday. Mr. Nilan is chief of probation at Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield.

Police officers did look at and photograph the car the day after the accident, according to the warrant, but Shugrue denied police a second, more thorough examination without a search warrant.

Police Sgt. Mark B. Trapani, writing in his application for a search warrant on Dec. 14, stated that denial was among the reasons police needed a court’s permission to search the Subaru. The car was being kept in the Nilans’ garage at the time the search warrant was requested.

Police have not released any information on what, if anything, was obtained from the search of the car. The warrant indicated they’d hoped to look at the Subaru to search for blood, skin or hair that could determine if it was the Subaru that struck Moore, and to check the car’s data recorder to see how fast it might have been going at the time.

"[I]t is not an absolute fact at this time that it was Nilan’s vehicle that struck Moore," Trapani stated in the search warrant documents. "A more detailed search of the vehicle will determine this to a certainty."

Meanwhile, images of the Subaru viewed by The Eagle show a head-sized hole in the lower-right center of the windshield and large dents in the hood.

In the search warrant documents, Trapani pointed out "there have been inconsistencies between Moore’s account and Nilan’s account of the time of the accident, as well as where the accident occurred." However, he said while the inconsistencies may have been "inadvertent," there was no way to tell for sure without examining the vehicle.

What is known is that about 8:15 p.m. on Dec. 8, Peter Moore of 101 McIntosh Drive was jogging with his dog along Winesap Road when he saw a vehicle coming at him at a high rate of speed. He threw his dog out of the way and dove out of the way to try and avoid the vehicle, according to the search warrant documents.

Dazed after being hit, Moore got up and walked a little more than a quarter-mile to his home on McIntosh Road, where he went to bed. Neither he nor his wife called police to report what happened. However, Moore woke up a few hours later in extreme pain and went to Berkshire Medical Center to be treated.

The morning after, Berkshire Medical Center contacted police to say they were treating Moore who’d been hit by a car the night before. That day, due to his concussion, Moore was unable to provide police with a description of the vehicle that hit him, according to the search warrant records.

The police indicated that Meredith Nilan told them she struck something near the intersection of McIntosh Road around 9 p.m. She told police she got out of the vehicle, checked around, but saw nothing. She went home and later went back to the scene with her father "to look for what was struck and could not find anything," the police information stated.

They returned home and Clifford Nilan called police around 9:30 p.m. to report that his daughter had hit "either a dog or deer on Winesap Road near their home," according to court documents.

"She didn’t know what she hit," Shugrue said.

Police visited the location where Meredith Nilan said her accident occurred but couldn’t find any signs of one.

Moore told police he was hit on Winesap Road near East Street. Police visited that scene and determined it was the "actual location for the accident." There, police found what appeared to be "a large amount of apparent blood in the roadway and also what appear[ed] to be a small amount of dog fur" near 6 Winesap Road, which is close to East Street where Moore said he was hit.

According to Shugrue, the Nilans did everything right that night. They scoured the scene looking for any evidence of what Meredith may have hit, as well as reporting the accident to police and waiting for law enforcement officers, who, Shugrue claimed, never showed up at the Nilan home on the night of the accident. Meredith Nilan also cooperated by speaking with police about her accident the following day, said Shugrue. <<<<<

SEE: 'Cloud surrounds alleged hit-and-run'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

PEDA Cuts Off Web Access to 'Master Plan'

2011-12-23T12:12:00.081-05:00

Download PEDA's Master Plan and 'Enabling Legislation' (see below).

by G.M. Heller
Published: Friday, December 23, 2011

Wm. Stanley Business Park, Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- Credit goes to 'Molly', a poster at Web site PlanetValenti.com, who made the discovery late last night that the link from Pittsfield Economic Development Authority's Web site to the agency's so-called 'Master Plan' has been terminated.

In other words, public access to PEDA's primary document has been shut off, coincidentally on the eve of the agency's announcement that it is negotiating with a Boston-area mall developer to construct a large "retail complex" on PEDA land.

That Master Plan is PEDA's signature report, written specifically to encapsulate and describe PEDA's entire mission, its raison d'etre.

What is behind this attempt to keep the public in the dark?

What explains the timing of PEDA's capricious action to prevent the public verifying that what PEDA is now contemplating with a proposed complex of buildings geared solely for retail is indeed in keeping with the goals and restrictions set by the state legislature when it established PEDA, set as well by PEDA itself when the newly-created agency's first most scrutinized task was to produce its critical mission statement and game plan?

Just yesterday, The Berkshire Eagle ran an editorial hailing the proposed complex at William Stanley Business Park.

All this means is that all the local players are now on board.

So what specifically is it in PEDA's Master Plan that could possibly trip up what the developer and PEDA are now contemplating?

Further, does the original enabling legislation even allow PEDA to engage this developer's project given that the proposed complex has plainly nothing at all to do with manufacturing?

Remember, it took four years and nine months of time and money (from 01/15/99 to 09/2003) to produce PEDA's Master Plan, and now it appears PEDA, in possible breach of its legislature-authorized mission, is chucking the whole thing to pursue a course guaranteed only to create low-paying entry-level jobs requiring little or no skills.

PEDA's Master Plan is Available Here
As a community service, and in spite of PEDA's precipitous action cutting off public access, the PDF file containing PEDA's original Master Plan, published September 2003, is available for download at the following link (File size: 28.2 MB):
http://www.berkshirerecord.com/masterPlanPEDA2.PDF

In addition, the Massachusetts General Court's original 'enabling legislation', which created PEDA in 1998 (approved January 15, 1999), is available at either of the following links:
1) http://www.berkshireeagle.blogspot.com/2011/03/pittsfield-economic-development.html
2) http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter486
(Link #2 connects directly to the Massachusetts General Court Web site, with relevant text starting with the phrase "SECTION 2. Chapter 295 of the acts of 1996 is hereby amended .....") <<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Obama's Legacy

2011-08-06T20:05:00.022-04:00

The following obituary was published in the Rome, Georgia News-Tribune (click on image to enlarge):

Even the dead want Obama gone!

Easy Money: Funnel $6,175 to Liberal Democrats, Get Back $4.6 Million (Plus Tax Abatements)!

2011-06-04T16:51:00.114-04:00

Iredale Cosmetics' Sleazy Tax-Exempt Bond Deal: Payback for Campaign Cash to Obama & Dems?

Was six-figure job for ex-state rep. Denis Guyer part of the deal?

by G.M. Heller
Published: Saturday, June 4, 2011
Updated: Monday, June 6, 2011

Great Barrington, Massachusetts -- There may be other considerations attached to the recent grant of a $4.6 million tax-exempt federal Recovery Zone Facilities Bond to Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd..

Jeffrey Simon, director of the Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Office, claimed May 25 that the Great Barrington-based company and its project to rehab the former Bryant Elementary School into Iredale's new corporate headquarters is "a model for other businesses".

Photo: Liberal Democrat State Rep. Wm. 'Smitty' Pignatelli and Jeffrey Simon, director of the Massachusett's Recovery and Reinvestment Office, look admiringly on at what a few well-placed campaign contributions can accomplish at the federal level. In the background is the 'down-to-the-studs' rehabilitation of the former Bryant Elementary School in Great Barrington to be used by Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd. as its new corporate headquarters, the reconstruction project being paid for and subsidized by a tax-exempt bond issued under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Recovery Zone Bond Program.
Photo Credit: iberkshires.com

What Mr. Simon failed to mention in his glowing assessment of Iredale was that the $4.6 million RZFB tax-exempt bond his agency had awarded could easily be construed to be the quid pro quo for thousands of dollars in federal campaign contributions funneled by Ms. Iredale to Liberal Democrats.

Photo: Jane Iredale, Pres. & Founder,
Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd..
Photo Credit: janeiredale.blogspot.com

Jane Iredale's company was awarded the largest helping of federal RZFB bond funds allocated to Berkshire County.

A total of $5.725 million was allocated (via formula using data supplied by both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Treasury applicable to all counties nationwide) to all of Berkshire County for eligible projects, yet inexplicably Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd. was awarded the lion's share of the available local funds, receiving $4.6 million. All bonds had to be issued by January 1, 2011.

Illustration: Sodahead.com
The federal largess shown Iredale Mineral Cosmetics appears to be the direct result of owner Jane Iredale's own largess: the CEO's generous cash contributions to Barack Obama in 2008 in the midst of his run for President, as well as to the campaigns of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) and Congressman John W. Olver (D-MA1).

Ms. Iredale is also no slouch when it comes to opening her wallet to the Democrat National Committee and to left-wing Democrat causes and political organizations like MoveOn.org.

The money for the tax-exempt bond, doled out from the federal Recovery Zone Bond Program established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama in 2009), is being administered by Mr. Simon's office (an agency that itself is one of the state's newest patronage havens controlled by Beacon Hill's Liberal Democrats).

The nexus of the Obama RZBP bond program and state Liberal Democrat control of Mr. Simon's Recovery and Reinvestment Office would also explain the strange pairing of Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd. with Liberal Democrat Denis Guyer, a former Berkshire County state representative from Dalton, who was hired by Iredale in March 2011 less than three months after his term as state rep expired January 5, 2011, the multi-termed incumbent curiously opting not to seek reelection.

Photo: Liberal Democrats U.S. Senator John F. Kerry and former Mass. State Representative Denis Guyer before Mr. Guyer 'retired' from politics and was promptly hired by Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd..

Mr. Guyer, who has no former experience in women's cosmetics nor in retail sales but does have oodles of political connections on Beacon Hill and amongst the Democrats who populate the Massachusetts delegation in Washington, D.C., may have been part of the equation that resulted in both his being hired at a six-figure salary by Iredale and the firm's receipt of a generous helping of federal largess administered by a Massachusetts state agency.

Prior to hiring Mr. Guyer, company CEO Jane Iredale apparently had no interest whatsoever in Mr. Guyer as a state representative since there is no record of Ms. Iredale ever contributing a penny to Mr. Guyer's campaigns or campaign committee.

Regarding generous helpings of largess from local taxpayers: Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, Ltd. is now also on the receiving end of a generous local real estate tax abatement from the Liberal Democrat-controlled Town of Great Barrington awarded by the town's Board of Assessors. <<<<<

The following is a list of Jane Iredale's most recent contributions to political organizations (from the files of OpenSecrets.org):

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/CEO, 10/30/10,$225, MoveOn.org.

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS, 10/16/08,$1,000, DNC Services Corp (D).

IREDALE, JANE, Great Barrington,MA 01230, Iredale Mineral Cosmetics, 10/16/08,$700, Obama, Barack (D).

IREDALE, JANE, Great Barrington, MA 01230, Iredale Mineral Cosmetics/Business, 10/14/08,$250, DNC Services Corp (D).

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON, MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS, 9/16/08,$500, Obama, Barack (D).

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS, 8/29/08,$1,000, Obama, Barack (D)

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS OWNER, 9/30/05,$250, Olver, John W (D).

IREDALE, JANE, GT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSM/BUSINESS OWNER, 7/26/05,$500, DNC Services Corp (D).

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS, 8/10/04,$1,000, MoveOn.org.

IREDALE, JANE, GREAT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSMETICS/BUSINESS, 8/4/04,$250, Kerry, John (D).

IREDALE, JANE, GT BARRINGTON,MA 01230, IREDALE MINERAL COSM/BUSINESS OWNER, 6/11/04,$500, DNC Services Corp (D).
------------------------------------------------------

Cover-up: The Berkshire Eagle's CEO "Barred..Reporting" on Stracuzzi Sex Cases!

2011-04-21T23:30:00.082-04:00

'Awful Details'

by G.M.Heller
Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:30PM

"The publisher barred us from reporting the awful details in the CEO story" writes Conor M. Berry, former senior crime reporter for The Berkshire Eagle, explaining how The Eagle's publisher and CEO, Andrew Mick, directly interceded to limit not only the scope of Mr. Berry's reportage but also exactly which details were to be given to the public (and, more importantly, which were not) regarding two pedophilia cases involving Angelo Stracuzzi, one of Berkshire County's then most powerful civic, political, and business figures.

Mr. Stracuzzi was also CEO of a bank the advertising dollars from which were (then and now) largely responsible for keeping The Eagle afloat.

Andrew Mick, Publisher and CEO, The Berkshire Eagle

The following is Mr. Berry's revealing discussion (posted to PlanetValenti) about what transpired at The Eagle when he became aware of the original criminal charges filed against Mr. Stracuzzi by police in Biddeford, Maine, which allegations included multiple counts of 'Patronizing Prostitution of a Minor' involving boys whose ages at the time were approximately 15 and 13 years-old:

From: Conor Berry

April 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm

"Mr. Heller,

"You win: So, I’m feeling some pressure, as a reporter, to peel the onion further, especially since the “citizen journalists” of the online world are mentioning the awful, tawdry details of the Greylock CEO case and I haven’t written word one — though I did, in a rather delphic way, allude to some bizarre sets of circumstances.

Conor M. Berry, former senior crime reporter for The Berkshire Eagle, now with The Republican in Springfield, Mass.

"Didn’t the CEO’s mother warn him against picking up hitchhikers?!

"I was originally told, point blank, by two well-placed law enforcement sources that the underlying charges, the ones The Eagle avoided covering initially, stemmed from allegations that the CEO in question solicited sex from a group of boys or pre-teens up in Biddeford, ME.

"At that point, I had no idea the allegations stemmed from two separate incidents spread over two evenings. I actually learned that from you, Mr. Heller. My source said, and I quote: “He offered money to some boys for a [blank].”

"Once I learned of the disposition of the case from Maine law enforcement officials, I was disturbed by the underlying charges — the ones that were dismissed by the state of Maine.

"I was fully prepared to report on these original, more disturbing charges, but my editor told me to hang tight until he ran it by the publisher (understandably, my editor didn’t want another Massimiano story on his hands, and frankly I didn’t want to be maligned in another full-page color ad in my own paper! Incidentally, what kind of thought goes through a publisher’s head when he accepts $20,000+ for an ad mocking his paper, his editor and, arguably, the only reporter at his paper who was asking any intelligent questions?).

Angelo C. Stracuzzi, former president and CEO, Greylock Federal Credit Union

"Hold on, Heller, here it comes: The publisher barred us from reporting the awful details in the CEO story.

"I was told by my editor that, according to the publisher, if the bank CEO had incurred more recent charges, whether they be in Maine, Connecticut or Massachusetts, for that matter, we could proceed. But we were NOT to focus on charges that were, by then, already a half-dozen years old. Particularly charges that weren’t ultimately pursued by the state of Maine, but rather dismissed by the state of Maine.

"I’ve alluded to all of this before, Mr. Heller, but you apparently weren’t satisfied with my allusions.

"Not for nothing, but this sort of back-and-forth discussion is nothing new in the world of newspapers, but rather something that boils down to “news judgment.” I’m sure you’ll have a field day with that phrase, but every paper in America, depending on its trajectory and mission, has its own sense of news judgment. Some papers are more to the left, others more to the right.

"For a small, regional daily such as The Eagle, there is a pronounced sensitivity to the “names in the news,” the “power structure,” or, as you fellows frequently refer to them, the “GOBs.”

"During my 3 1/2-year tenure at The Eagle, I was called into my editor’s office several times so he could give me “heads-up” about the publisher hearing such and such about me … that the publisher had heard that I was asking this guy about this matter, and that gal about that matter, etc., etc.

"It wore on me, frankly, and I did feel that it inhibited me from doing my job as a reporter, which is to dig and ask questions, regardless of how unsavory the issue at hand is, or regardless of how powerful (or delusional?) the subject of the questions may be.

"Very disheartening, indeed.

"And I can honestly report that this was the first time, in my relatively long journalism career, that I ever felt the long arm of the publisher’s office sticking itself into places it had no right to be stuck. Pardon whatever unsavory imagery that phrase may conjure …

"I won’t detail other cases of publisher intrusion, but I often found myself in a defensive posture, defending myself against crimes, rumors and innuendo that simply weren’t true. In a word, I was disgusted, and my frustration was well known in the newsroom.

"That aside, I can’t say enough good things about my managing editor, a native son of the county, who never shied away from hard news or news that may have rocked the boat. He was my rabbi, and I’ll always respect him for that.

"On a final note, when an editor picked up a proof of the full-page ad (the one in which Massimiano, that powerful little man, maligns me as a reporter and threatens to sue me) and brought it into the executive editor’s office so we could digest its contents, the publisher very angrily stormed into the executive editor’s office and chastised we goofy news guys for examining the ad, which was promptly taken away from us. Again, welcome to bizarro world.

"Respectfully,
CONOR

"PS — I apologize, Mr. Valenti, for using your forum to respond to Mr. Heller, but his own blog spots don’t get any traffic, and, for better or worse, he seems to have found a new home on PlanetValenti. You should charge him rent, Dan!"

--------------------------------------------
Conor M. Berry is no longer writing for The Berkshire Eagle; he now reports for The Republican in neighboring Springfield, Massachusetts.

From Mr. Berry's Web page at The Republican:

About Me: As a longtime newspaper reporter, I've covered everything from crime and politics to offshore whale entanglements and dairy farming. Now it's time to embrace real-time reporting, so please drop me a dime -- anytime -- at cberry@repub.com or (413) 788-1276.

--------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Other articles of interest in this series:
>When Will The Publisher Stop Covering For The Banker? -- Just what does Greylock's disgraced ex-CEO have on The Berkshire Eagle's Andrew Mick? -- What else is The Berkshire Eagle failing to report?, Saturday, June 19, 2010
>State of Maine v. Angelo Stracuzzi -- What The Berkshire Eagle Fails to Report, Thursday June 03, 2010

N.A. Mayor's Wife Given Preferential Treatment by N.A. Cops in Shoplifting Case?

2011-04-10T15:00:00.016-04:00

by G.M. Heller
Published: Sunday, April 10, 2011 03:00PM

Liberal Democrat Mayor Richard Alcombright and his wife Michelle Alcombright at a November, 2009 campaign rally for Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley. Photo Credit: BerkshireFineArts.com

Michelle M. Alcombright in a March 29, 2011 mug shot after her arrest for shoplifting in Ruskin, Florida.

Hillsborough County, Florida -- Local police report that a woman named Michelle M. Alcombright was arrested March 29 at 7 o'clock in the evening at a store on Sun City Center Blvd in Ruskin, Florida. A WalMart Supercenter is located at that address.

The woman was charged with "Retail Theft $300 or more". She was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted.

Last summer, it was alleged (via anonymous sources) that one Michelle M. Alcombright was caught shoplifting at WalMart on Curran Highway in North Adams.

Michelle Alcombright of North Adams is the wife of Richard Alcombright, Liberal Democrat Mayor of North Adams, who announced April 8th he will be seeking a second term.

The Michelle Alcombright arrested in Florida not only shares the same name but also is of the same age as the Mayor's wife in North Adams.

The North Adams WalMart case magically disappeared. No charges were filed and no one in authority would speak about the matter: not the store's manager, nor the store's employees, nor officials in the North Adams Police Department.

The mug shot of the Florida woman is near identical to a recent photo of Mayor Alcombright's wife (see photos above).

If the lady caught shoplifting in Florida twelve days ago is the same woman alleged to have been caught last summer in North Adams, then why was that North Adams shoplifter accorded special treatment by North Adams Police instead of being treated like the lady in Florida -- as a shoplifter?

Postscript: Ms. Alcombright was arrested around 7PM on Tuesday 3/29, but, according to the police file, was not released til the following day after 5PM, a total of more than 22 hours in police custody. Where was hubby, and why did it take so long to bail out North Adams' First Lady? <<<<<

---------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

---------------------------

From the Web site of the Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida:

Hillsborough County

David Gee, Sheriff

Tampa, FL

Important Notice:The data on this site provides only arrest and booking information and should not be relied upon to determine an individual's actual criminal record. This data may not reflect charging decisions made by the State Attorney's Office or the outcome of criminal trials. An acquittal or dismissal of a criminal charge does not necessarily negate the validity of an arrest. To obtain the final disposition of any criminal charges, contact the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

This report includes:Aliases Release Data Charges

	Name: ALCOMBRIGHT, MICHELLE M DOB: 10/21/1957 Booking #: 11015527 Arrest Date: 03/29/2011 Race: W Sex: F Ethnicity: N	More Information: Report Identity Theft Report an Error Remove an Arrest Record Frequently Asked Questions

STATUS:
STATUS - *RELEASED*

BOND:
$2,000.00

CASH:
$0.00

FINE:
$0.00

PURGE
$0.00

Personal Information

Last Name	First Name	Middle Name	Suffix	Booking No.
ALCOMBRIGHT	MICHELLE	M		11015527

Eyes	Hair	Build	Current Age	Height	Weight	SOID	SOID Name
BRO	BRO	MED	53	5'03	140	00694142	ALCOMBRIGHT,MICHELLE M

Race	Sex	Ethn	POB	DOB	Arrest Age	SSN
W	F	N	MA	10/21/1957	53	###-##-####

Address

Street Address	City	State	Zip
12315 674 HW	LITHIA	FL	33598

Aliases

Aliases	Date OF Birth	Social Security Number
ALCOMBRIGHT,MICHELLE M	10/21/1957	###-##-####
COLLIER,MICHELLE MARIE	10/21/1957	###-##-####
MINEAU,MICHELLE MARIE	10/21/1957	###-##-####

Arrest Information

Arrest Agency	Arrest Date	Arrest Time	Book Date	Book Time
HCSO	03/29/2011	18:59	03/29/2011	22:17

Arrest Location	Jurisdiction
3846 SUN CITY CENTER BL	HC

Release Information

Release Data
DOES NOT OCCUPY A CELL - RELEASED ON: 03/30/2011 AT 17:10 - REL: SURETY BOND

Additional Information

OBTS	Caution Ind.	Caution Remarks
2902153205

Attorney	Address	Phone
NONE

Next of Kin	Address	Relationship
##########	####################	##########

Employer	Occupation	Address

Charges

No.	Charge Description	Class	Court	DISP	Bond	BP	Fine	Custody Days	Charge Count	Charge Type
1	RETAIL THEFT $300 OR MORE	F3	31	SURETY BOND	$2,000.00	B		1	1	PROBABLE CAUSE

Report #	CT-Case #	Date	Agency	OBTS Number	Charge Code	CRA Number
11154223	1104863	03/29/2011	HCSO	2902153205	THEF7030	1628059

Remark

Information provided should not be relied upon for any type of legal action.

Sheriff's Operations Center

2008 E. 8th Ave

Tampa, FL 33605

(813) 247-8000

--END--

Police Union Prez' Emailed 'Threat' May Violate Fed Laws

2011-04-02T06:30:00.056-04:00

Allege: Pittsfield Police Conduct Records Search on Journalist Without 'Probable Cause'

by G.M. Heller
Published: April 2, 2011 06:30AM

Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- A top union official in the local that represents the City of Pittsfield's police officers and police administrative personnel recently sent an email to union 'rank and file' containing what could be construed as a warning and threat of retaliation if any member were found passing along embarrassing departmental information to journalists investigating the scandal-plagued police department.

This comes in the midst of an investigation by a multi-agency federal task force looking into alleged widespread use in Pittsfield of anabolic steroids, the illegal doping drug favored by body-builders.

A probe, acknowledged to be "ongoing" by a U.S. Postal Inspection Service information officer in Boston (with agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration allegedly participating), has resulted in at least one Pittsfield Police Department detective and one Massachusetts State Police trooper being temporarily re-assigned.

Marc Maddalena, president of Local 447 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union), which local also calls itself the Pittsfield Police Patrolman’s Union, acknowledges in an online comment posted April 1st to sending the recent email message "to my fellow officers and civilian staff".

Officer Maddalena further admits in his comment that in fact he "did ask them to stop talking to people like Mr. Valenti" (the reference to 'people like Mr. Valenti' apparently referring to anyone engaged in investigative journalism).

But, claims union president Maddalena, "not becaue their (sic) is a cover up going on, but simply because whoever is providing this information is not someone partaking in the investigation and thus is spewing information without all of the facts causing more harm than good and distrust within the comunity (sic) needlessly."

He goes on, "When the investigation is complete the facts will be brought forward and people can develop their opinions then. I am disappointed in the person providing incomplete information as I believe anyone would be. That is all."

Local journalist Dan Valenti, on his Web site PlanetValenti, claims to have obtained a copy of the Maddalena email, and describes the document, saying "It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti. You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted."

Mr. Valenti went on to explain, "We’re exaggerating our paraphrase here for effect. There were members who did not appreciate getting scolded."

Those union rank and file to whom Mr. Valenti refers apparently have good reason not to appreciate 'getting scolded'.

That's because the content of union president Maddalena's admitted email communication to union members, especially if it contains the warning and implicit threat Mr. Valenti claims, likely violates sections of not less than three separate federal statutes.

The specific laws applicable to a union official making specific or implied threats to rank and file in order to intimidate individual members either from exercising their right of free speech, and/or right of association, and/or from going public with information of suspected governmental wrongdoing, include the 'Wagner Act' aka 'National Labor Relations Act', the 'Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959', and of more recent vintage, the 'Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007'.

Dan Valenti, Publisher, PlanetValenti.com

What's more, Officer Maddalena's apparent disregard for federal statutes is not limited just to ignoring the laws governing labor relations and whistleblowers.

Officer Maddalena, who serves as a uniformed officer in PPD's Patrol Division, also appears to have difficulty complying with Constitutional guarantees set forth in the Bill of Rights.

It was Officer Maddalena himself, in a comment the union president posted March 31st onto PlanetValenti, who reminded Mr. Valenti that indeed he should remember just who Officer Maddalena is.

That's because Officer Maddalena says he once stopped Mr. Valenti in downtown Pittsfield for what appears now to have been a minor traffic violation, so minor in fact that, according to Mr. Valenti, no ticket was ever issued!

Here is Officer Maddalena's description of that first encounter with Mr. Valenti, followed by Mr. Valenti's own recollection:
Officer Maddalena: "Mr. Valenti, I am an officer with the PD and the union president. You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St.".
Dan Valenti: "As to the matter of 'You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St.', officer Maddalena has the advantage. The Planet doesn’t know who he is because of this. We couldn’t pick him out of police lineup. Here are the facts, which we have no problem sharing. The Planet was stopped (guessing six years ago) by a patrolman in a squad car as we traveled east on Linden Street taking a left to go north on North Street. We assume that is officer Maddalena’s reference, since we have never been stopped downtown otherwise. The Planet is one of the world’s safest drivers, you see. Ask Mrs. Planet. The patrolman stopped us and said we went through a red light. We didn’t. The light was green, turned yellow in the middle of our turn, and red by the time we got safely onto North Street. After we discussed his version versus mine, a most professional and cordial conversation, he decided not to issue a ticket. In other words, he agreed we were right — no violation. Glad to clarify. We remember the officer for his professionalism and politeness."

Now does Officer Maddalena seriously expect the public, reading his own words on PlanetValenti, to swallow the line that he remembers a name, face, and uneventful traffic stop from more than half a decade earlier involving a greying middle-aged driver to whom he did not issue a citation?

Or is it more likely that Officer Maddalena, having heard of, or read, the various insider revelations pouring forth lately from Mr. Valenti's computer keyboard onto the Planet Valenti web site relating unsavory goings-on within the Pittsfield Police Department, simply decided either on his own or with the aid of others in the department -- with no probable cause whatsoever to believe that Mr. Valenti had engaged in any sort of criminal act -- to do a little research, detective work, to scope out just who is this fellow Dan Valenti?

It would appear that without probable cause, and in direct violation of Mr. Valenti's Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, Officer Maddalena ran Mr. Valenti's name through the police department's computer database in order to see just what could be discovered about Mr. Valenti and his sources of information.

What Officer Maddalena apparently found was information about one lone traffic stop sometime about six years ago for which no ticket issued. <<<<<

The following are excerpted comments posted to PlanetValenti on the thread dated March 31st:

From:

Marc Maddalena

March 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,

I am an officer with the PD and the union president. You know who I am because I have stopped you for a motor vehicle infraction before on North St. I would like you and everyone to know that we support both officers Mchugh and Ofc Kirchner fully. Both are highly respected officers within the department as a result of their work ethic and commitment to their fellow officers and their community. Despite what many, including you, may think these officers have provided a great service to this city over the years that has gone unnoticed as it does for all our officers except amongst each other. If only this city had an idea of what really takes place out there. The only source of information, the Eagle, barely scratches the surface of the incidents this department responds to. Over 40,000 calls for service a year and over 1400 arrests.

In regards to our Chief Michael Wynn, this union is also in full support of him and his ability to run this department. We have complete confidence in our chief and his ability to CONTINUE to take our department in a positive direction as he has done since taking over. Again, all going unnoticed since it does not sell papers or is not “Sexy” enough for your blog.

This department is made up of many incredible men and women who start their work days by putting on a bullett (sic) proof vest and no matter what you or anyone else says or may think of any of us, if you ever have to dial those three numbers…..We will always be there and it will go unnoticed.

Respectfully,
Ofc Marc Maddalena
President, IBPO 447
Pittsfield Police Patrolman’s Union

----------------------------------------------------
From:

Marc Maddalena

April 1, 2011 at 6:43 am

Sir,

The Pittsfield Police Union, since I have been at the head, is not against drug testing by any means. As firefighter Bartini stated, it has to be negotiated into the contract and has been on the table each time the last three one year contracts that I have been apart of. However, due to the economics of the city, the negotiations have been a quick 1%, 1 year deal with the hopes of expanded negotiations and a longer term deal that very well could include a form of random drug testing. I speak for all of my officers when I tell you that we are not against random drug testing.

In regards to my email to my fellow officers and civilian staff. I did ask them to stop talking to people like Mr. Valenti not becaue (sic) their (sic) is a cover up going on, but simply because whoever is providing this information is not someone partaking in the investigation and thus is spewing information without all of the facts causing more harm than good and distrust within the comunity (sic) needlessly. When the investigation is complete the facts will be brought forward and people can develop their opinions then. I am disappointed in the person providing incomplete information as I believe anyone would be. That is all.

And thank you to all who do support your civil servants of this community. I cannot express how much we all appreciate it.

Ofc Marc Maddalena

-----------------------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm

The Planet got word of the e-mail President Maddalena sent to the members immediately after it was sent … well almost. We were a step ahead (though we admire the move by Ofc. Maddalena in trying to head that off from the pass in his second letter to this website) and 15 steps ahead of the BB. The memo quotes from The Planet’s reportage. It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti. You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted. We’re exaggerating our paraphrase here for effect. There were members who did not appreciate getting scolded. Despite what some may want to say, The Planet isn’t manufacturing any of this. We are reflecting what’s going on in the department. We are neutral. Mirrors don’t make judgments.

---------------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,
Is there any state or federal law that addresses union officials ‘warning’ union members not to engage in free association and/or free speech under ‘threat’ of union punishment?
In other words, is it even legal for a union official to make threats of that nature?
If possible, please publish on your Web site the email you received (redacting, of course, any information that would identify from whom you received this document.

----------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm

Don’t know.
Also, I wouldn’t classify the union head’s communication with the members as a “warning” with a “threat.” It was a request for all troops to lower the Blue Curtain by stop talking to the press.

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Understood, but you, yourself, construed that email as saying that “It basically warns members to shut the heck up and don’t speak to Valenti,” as you so succinctly stated above.
No doubt your source for the email also construed it similarly (otherwise why bother forwarding it to you).

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm

And you further paraphrase the email as saying,“You get caught speaking to Valenti, you’re busted.” You don’t consider that giving a warning and making a threat of retaliation in the event that warning is not heeded?

----------------------------
From:
danvalenti
April 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm

I won’t characterize it other than what I’ve written.

----------------------------
From:
GMHeller
April 1, 2011 at 2:48 pm

Mr. Valenti,
Please post the wording of the email so that your readers can decide for themselves whether there was a warning and/or threat implied in this email from local union officials to union members specifically not to exercise their free speech rights.
Thank you. <<<<<

-------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Fed Steroid Probe: Who's Next?

2011-03-26T06:28:00.041-04:00

Investigation Has Many in Berkshire County on Edge

by G.M. Heller
Published: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 06:30AM

Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- The U.S. Postal Investigative Service/U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration probe into illegal Anabolic Steroid use in Pittsfield has already produced fallout, sidelining one Pittsfield Police Department officer and one Massachusetts State Police officer.

The PPD officer is David P. Kirchner of Lenox, while the MSP officer has yet to be named and is, according to The Berkshire Eagle, a "trooper, who is stationed at the Russell barracks and is believed to live in Berkshire County". (Editor's note: District Attorney David F. Capeless revealed March 29th that the name of the Massachusetts State Police trooper implicated in the federal probe is Daniel Gale.)

Who's next to be engulfed in this scandal?

Based on PPD's own March 10th, 2011 Internal Affairs report, there's at least one more PPD employee whose fate has yet to be made public.

Berkshire Eagle reporter Conor Berry reports in today's (March 26) Berkshire Eagle the following, based on PPD's Internal Affairs report:
[Brackets below indicate this writer's own edits]

"(O)fficials [presumably USPIS/DEA] met with [PPD's Internal Affairs pointman Capt. David R.] Granger on March 7 and March 8, turning over various investigatory materials, including supporting affidavits, written and audio statements and other evidence implicating Kirchner and an unidentified individual in the illegal purchase of steroids."
[Italics added by this writer for emphasis.]

Now by definition, USPIS/DEA would only be turning over to PPD's Internal Affairs unit 'investigatory materials' related to matters within the IA unit's jurisdiction -- meaning matters specifically involving PPD personnel. Therefore, there remains one PPD employee whose fate has so far not been made public.

Who is that unidentified PPD employee and when will PPD tell the public of its actions regarding this person's specific case?

Further, Capt. Granger's IA Report is dated Thursday, March 10. That's more than two weeks ago. Just when was PPD going to get around to making that IA report public (and when was The Berkshire Eagle, which initially had to be brought kicking and screaming even to report on this federal investigation, finally going to report it)?

Further, the public still is not being told the who, what, where, how and when as to the event/bust/or whatever allegedly took place in downtown Pittsfield sometime during the period March 12-19. It is that event which first caused a rash of rumors to circulate throughout the city.

Just as important, and the question keeping many in Berkshire County on edge: who else is being implicated in the Feds' steroids probe by the person known only as "[name deleted], the subject and defendant" [quoting directly from PPD's IA report]?

According to information that has come 'over the transom', that list of possible 'who else's' may include "many more PPD patrons [of a steroids dealer] than they [USPIS/DEA originally] thought but also lawyers and other prominent people ...". <<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Crime Fighting 'Westie' On Pittsfield's Steroids Trail

2011-03-23T23:30:00.056-04:00

Fearless pooch with whom one does not mess

by G.M. Heller
Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:30PM

Great Barrington, Massachusetts -- Murray, the well-known 'Westie' who lives on Hollenbeck Avenue in this southern Berkshire town, apparently gets around more than he lets on, at least to those who think they know him well.
'Little' Murray >
At home in Gt. Barrington
Photo Credit: Yankee Magazine

The hirsute West Highland White Terrier, known on the street and in Vegas as Murray 'Bones' (as in 'he made his') , has been pointing his pointed nose northward, into air miles away from this sleepy neighborhood in South County.

This, along with lots of investigative digging, doggy-style, has enabled the pugnacious pooch to come up with some meaty tidbits about Pittsfield's unfolding anabolic steroids scandal (all the more noteworthy because Murray says his human housemates think he's vegetarian).

Murray also labors under the treacly moniker 'Little' Murray (a name he says he detests), pasted on him by those same housemates. Says Murray, "Sanctimonious Liberals, what the hell do they know.")

Murray's most recent revelations concern the U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation, the one no one in Pittsfield City Hall wants to speak of, and which few at the Pittsfield Police Department will even admit to knowing about.

Seems that Murray, on account of his diminutive presence, was able unobtrusively to get up close and personal whilst certain events were going down last week in Pittsfield.

As Murray puts it, "Well Pops (Murray apparently calls everyone he likes 'Pops'), it was like this. I'd caught a ride up seven and was sniffing around downtown Pittsfield when I came across what smelled like really rank piss -- ya know, really sour -- like worse than a French cat house at low tide, if you comprendo dog."

It occurred to me I should ask Murray how he came about his knowledge of this more esoteric aspect of France, but decided to let it go til another time. As for the smell, though he may not understand the specific chemical process, Murray was making reference to the airborne emissions anabolic steroids give off when metabolized by the human body and mixed with sweat.

"So I followed this rank smell up North Street, then pawed left onto Summer, ending up in front of this big place that was all lit-up, with people, and big rooms with strange machines inside. The sign way above my head had a word I got, but the other I never heard of: 'Berkshire Nautilus'.
Murray 'Bones' (as in 'he made his')
With tan, deep undercover at Berkshire Nautilus
Photo Credit: Las Vegas Sun

"Next I knew, the place was all in an uproar. Some smelly guy was being handcuffed, others questioned. I figured out pretty quick this was a bust, but over what I could not tell. All I know is that the smelly guy getting cuffed got searched up and down and front to back by some very large and thorough Pops.

"Those doing the searching pulled from Smelly one of those paper piles held together with a spiral wire thingy. From what I could see, there were pages and pages of groups of letters, and numbers beside each of these letter groups.

"From Smelly's pocket one of the Pops pulled out a round chunk of long green papers. Not sure what it was, but that Pops was counting out each green paper in front of Smelly telling him finally how many greens he'd counted. It sounded like a big number, something 'thousand'.

"There were now two Pops looking through the paper piles and they went wide-eyed telling each other 'Hey, can you believe all these f***ing names!', using a word I hear all the time when I'm home, while they pointed to specific groups of letters, shaking their heads.

"One of the Pops said, 'Isn't he that lawyer?' The other responded 'Yeah, and isn't this one a big mucky muck?' saying words I didn't quite understand. These two went back and forth page after page talking about how many groups of letters they were seeing on each page, and something about how next to each letter group Smelly had written a 'date' and an 'amount'.

"They finally called over to a third Pops to join them, that's how excited they were. These three Pops were at once shaking their heads, smirking, even laughing as they paged through all these papers containing what one Pops called 'a goddam road map', another word I hear around the house all the time.

"Then they put the whole pile of paper, carefully it seemed, along with the chunk of green papers into a large yellow paper sleeve. One Pops licked the top, folded it, wrote something on it, and then handed it to one of the other Pops.

"I'll tell ya, Pops, it was just about then that I got scared and the hairs on my back stood straight up. I coulda used a hydrant right there, but I just got the hell away instead.

"As fast as I could, I ran out the door, headed down to Center Street and cut a hard left.

"Then you'll never guess what happened next, Pops. I stopped running when I hit South Church.

"Out of breath I found myself in front of another big building, this one only half lit. No one around. Mercury vapor and compact fluorescent lighting -- really eerie.

"Still backed up from before and even worse now from all that running, I was circling for someplace to go. I found this nice spot on the sidewalk. Ahh, sweet relief!

"Just then two fellas came out the clear doors one a step behind the other and headed smack dab for where I'd just planted that big one. And let me tell ya, it was humongous, a word I got from those jiggly human movies Pops is always watching when we stay upstairs at the Albany place.

"Just as the shorter of the two was saying 'Dammit Conor, I think I left my glasses at Taylor's barn again,' the short guy went and stepped right in the middle of it.

"I don't think he even realized because he just kept on walking. Meantime, the taller guy he called Conor had been walking slightly behind, and well, he just kept coming.

"In the middle of replying, 'Clarence, do you know how to spell horse's ass?', SQUISH!, wouldn't ya know it happened again, that tall fella, well, he too landed in, ... er, in the tall grass, if you get my dog.

"Let me tell ya, Pops, I got the hell out of there too, and as fast as I could git, and caught the first ride I could find back here to South County. I've had about as much Pittsfield humans getting into real shit as I can stand for awhile. Now feed me." <<<<<

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

The author wishes to thank Murray's family and entire neighborhood for granting Murray the liberal leash privileges that have so obviously empowered and enabled this brave animal to fight crime, as well as to contribute to this article. We just hope others take to heart the lesson of what empowering animals can really accomplish.

Feds Investigating Illegal Steroids Use in Pittsfield

2011-03-21T23:30:00.049-04:00

'Sting' rumored at local fitness center

by G.M. Heller
Published:
Monday, March 21, 2011, 11:30PM

Pittsfield, MA -- A federal official today confirmed a U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation into illegal anabolic steroids use in Pittsfield in which the focus appears to be on members of a downtown Pittsfield health club/fitness center, who are alleged to have been receiving shipments via U.S. Mail of quantities of these controlled 'doping' substances that are used for bodybuilding and enhanced sports performance.

Bernadette Lundbohm, public information officer for the Boston Division of USPIS, acknowledged this afternoon the participation by Postal Inspection Service personnel in the Pittsfield investigation. "This is an ongoing investigation," Ms. Lundbohm wrote in a response to emailed questions.

An official with U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration contacted by telephone at DEA's Springfield office refused comment.

Berkshire Nautilus Fitness Center on Summer Street in Pittsfield.

A high official in the Pittsfield Police Department claimed this afternoon in a telephone call not to know anything of the USPIS investigation nor about rumors of a combined USPIS/DEA 'sting' last week at Berkshire Nautilus on Summer Street, which undercover operation is alleged to have tagged at least one PPD detective and one Massachusetts State Police trooper.

Massachusetts state law stipulates mandatory minimum prison sentences for persons convicted of any kind of offense involving controlled substances or otherwise illegal drugs within one-thousand feet of a school or daycare center.

Berkshire Nautilus at 42 Summer Street is close by and easily within one-thousand feet of the closest childcare center, the YMCA at 292 North Street. <<<<< Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour Update:
Pittsfield Mayor James M. Ruberto's office has released the following statement in response to a request for comment regarding USPIS's acknowledgment of an ongoing federal investigation into anabolic steroids use in Pittsfield.

According to Tricia Farley-Bouvier, the Mayor's Public Affairs Coordinator: "This is (sic) investigation is not being conducted by the Pittsfield Police Department. If there are any personnel issues involved here, you know of course, that the mayor would not have a comment."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60-hour Update:
The Berkshire Eagle has now published (finally) its own confirmation of at least parts of the article above.

Officers disciplined after probe

By Conor Berry, Berkshire Eagle Staff

Updated: 03/24/2011 02:29:28 PM EDT

Thursday March 24, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- A probe into illegal steroids has resulted in disciplinary action against two police officers, one of whom works for the Pittsfield Police Department.

Authorities have identified the city officer as David P. Kirchner, a former plainclothes investigator with the Pittsfield Police Drug Unit who recently was suspended. The other law enforcement official is a Massachusetts State Police trooper, whom officials have declined to identify.

No criminal charges have been filed against either officer.

The trooper, who is stationed at the Russell barracks and is believed to live in Berkshire County, was placed on "restricted duty." That means he was stripped of his service weapon and cruiser and placed on "desk duty," according to David Procopio, a state police spokesman in Framingham.

Procopio declined to comment on whether the trooper might be charged with a crime.

"I can't comment on an ongoing investigation," he said. "I will confirm that we do have an internal investigation into allegations involving a trooper and performance-enhancing drugs."

Kirchner was suspended in connection with an investigation by an outside agency, but now is "back on the street as a patrol officer," Pittsfield Police Chief Michael J. Wynn said Wednesday.

Pittsfield police launched an internal affairs investigation that resulted in the veteran officer's suspension after the department "received information from an outside law enforcement agency," Wynn said, declining to identify the agency and the information it provided.

Wynn also would not comment on the nature of the allegations against Kirchner.

Richard M. Dohoney, the city's attorney, declined to provide any details about the suspension, including its length or whether Kirchner was paid during the deferment.

"I don't comment on personnel matters," the attorney said in a phone message Wednesday.

A woman who answered the door at Kirchner's Lenox home Wednesday morning said he was not home. The officer did not return a phone call seeking comment.

It remains unclear if Kirchner or the trooper might face charges in connection with the probe, which involved agents from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and possibly other agencies. A phone call to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to gauge that agency's involvement was not returned.

U.S. Postal Inspector Bernadette Lundbohm, in a phone message Wednesday to The Eagle, said she was "not at liberty to talk about" ongoing investigations and urged a reporter to obtain a copy of the "police report."

The Eagle has formally requested information about Kirchner's case from Pittsfield officials, who are "working on getting [the newspaper] the information we are allowed to release," mayoral aide Patricia Farley-Bouvier said in a Wednesday email message.

No criminal complaints had been filed against Kirchner as of Wednesday afternoon, according to officials in the Central Berkshire District Court clerk's office. However, a source told The Eagle that Kirchner would not be charged in connection with the steroid probe.

To reach Conor Berry:
cberry@berkshireeagle.com,
or (413) 496-6249.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

In Bed With General Electric Company

2011-03-03T19:40:00.078-05:00

What the Hell Are These People Thinking?

Are These Movers-and-Shakers Stopping a $1.5 Billion Dollar Stimulus to the Berkshire Economy?

by G.M. Heller
Published: Thursday, March 03, 2011, 7:40 P.M. EST.

Pittsfield, MA -- A small group of Berkshire County movers-and-shakers are principals in a local entity the professed goal of which is to push for limited remediation of PCB's and other toxic chemicals contaminating the Housatonic River and its flood plain. By so doing, though, these presumably well-intentioned folks may unintentionally be standing in the way of what could be a total of about $1.5 billion ($1,500,000,000) of stimulus to Berkshire County's economy.

The conflict of self-interests is exacerbated by the fact that the entity, 1Berkshire, Inc., is being heavily subsidized by General Electric Company, the firm whose PCB pollution is the subject of the entity's 'low-impact' publicity campaign.

Further, it is G.E. which is on the hook for that billion and a half dollars that would be supplying super-stimulus to Berkshire County if indeed full remediation of all toxics dumped by G.E. were to be ordered by U.S.E.P.A..
(Article continues below.)

1Berkshire, Inc.'s 'Movers-and-Shakers'

Michael P. Daly, Pres. & CEO, Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. and Berkshire Bank

Roger O. Goldman, Founder & Gen. Partner, Berkshire Opportunity Fund

C. Jeffrey Cook, Sr. Partner, Cohen, Kinne, Valicenti & Cook, LLP

Laurie Norton Moffatt, Dir./CEO, Norman Rockwell Museum

Nancy Fitzpatrick, Owner, Red Lion Inn

Kevin Sprague, Owner, Creative Dir., Studio Two.

Reggie Cooper, Managing Dir., Canyon Ranch

Gerard 'Jerry' Burke, Pres., Hillcrest Educational Centers

Michael Supranowicz, Pres. & CEO, Berkshire Chamber of Commerce

Lauri Ostrander Klefos, Pres. & CEO, Berkshire Visitors Bureau

Joseph C. Thompson, Dir., MASS MoCA

(Continued from above.)
1Berkshire is engaged in a public relations campaign, underwritten by at least $300,000 from G.E., to promote the notion that it would somehow be a good thing to limit or avoid altogether the remediation of PCB's and other toxic substances (including Hexavalent Chromium, Mercury, Volatile Organic Compounds, and Dioxins) plaguing -- poisoning actually -- Pittsfield, Silver Lake, the Housatonic River, Woods Pond, and the Housatonic River flood plain.

'Smart Clean-Up Coalition' -- but just how smart?

As part of that publicity campaign, 1Berkshire, using Facebook, is sponsoring what it calls the Smart Clean-Up Coalition, a so-called 'initiative' to promote what it labels a 'low-impact' clean-up of the Housatonic River; in other words, 1Berkshire's supporters are lobbying for a severely restricted remediation of the various toxins and cancer-causing chemicals contaminating the river and its flood plain. 1Berkshire's supporters are apparently concerned 'the cure' for PCB contamination may be worse than 'the disease'.

What 1Berkshire and G.E. are not telling people is that the real purpose behind the public relations blitz is to save G.E. literally $1.5 billion on the expense involved in removing the poisons G.E. intentionally dumped into the Berkshire environment from its now-closed transformer plant upriver over the course of more than a half-century.

As with all G.E. public relations campaigns, expect to be subjected to slick advertising everywhere (on local radio and TV, in The Berkshire Eagle and other newspapers, on local billboards, on Facebook, via snail mail and email, etc.) and all for the purpose of putting fear into people.

It pays to remember the bogeyman tactics G.E. orchestrated just ten years ago when the hot issue facing the company back then (hot meaning of potentially prohibitive impact to the company's bottom line) was whether G.E. should be required by U.S.E.P.A. to dredge the Hudson River of the PCB's released by G.E. from its plant upriver in Fort Edward, New York.

G.E. went all out in that campaign effort with ugly footage of dredges messily disgorging mud, glop and slop from a river bottom somewhere scenic, dumping all of it in also notably sloppy fashion into waiting barges (the ads intentionally -- misleadingly -- wanted to make people believe that PCB's in the river would be mishandled and allowed to re-pollute the river as they were being removed from it).

The reality, of course, has been a much different story. The actual dredges used for Hudson River remediation reflect state-of-the-art handling of materials. As much as possible, contaminated mud is held back and prevented from reentering the river environment.

Then, as now, it was a fear tactic meant to frighten and enrage.
The campaign back then was aimed at residents in New York and New Jersey, the two states sharing jurisdiction over the Hudson.

G.E. wanted those voters to bring pressure upon Congress (and thus U.S.E.P.A.) to accept G.E.'s 'initiative' for the Hudson, which then, as with the Housatonic at present, was a 'Low-Impact' plan (add: on G.E.'s bottom line) for remediation of PCB's and other chemicals contaminating the Hudson.

Back then, G.E.'s ultimate goal was 'monitored natural recovery' -- (sound familiar?) -- also known as the 'do nothing' plan. Watching and waiting costs G.E. almost nothing.

Bottom Line: Now, as in 2000, the whole intent behind these scare-the-public juggernauts is to save G.E. some very big bucks. G.E. avoids releasing total figures on what it costs the company to comply with U.S.E.P.A.'s remediation orders, but from time to time the expensive truth, like the PCB contamination in Silver Lake, inevitably seeps out.

Hudson River Clean-up Costs G.E. $1.33 Billion So Far

Under the headline "GE to Finish Cleanup Project -- Further Hudson River Dredging Prompts $500 Million Fourth-Quarter Charge", the Wall Street Journal reported last December that G.E. "will take a $500 million charge in the fourth quarter to help fund an environmental cleanup of the Hudson River that the conglomerate said it plans to complete during the next five to seven years." According to that same report: "GE said it already has spent $830 million on the Hudson cleanup effort. The company had dumped roughly 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, legally over a number of decades before the toxic chemicals were banned in 1977."
(Note: G.E. released these eye-opening figures just two days before Christmas, a time guaranteed to have few taking notice.)

Cleaning up PCB's and the laundry list of other toxics G.E. dumped willy-nilly into the environment over decades is highly capital intensive -- no cheap third-world labor here.

The claimed 1.3 million pounds of PCB's G.E. dumped into the Hudson River is less than the total amount of PCB's and other toxic chemicals estimated to have been dumped into Silver Lake and the Housatonic River.

Engineers with G.E. have claimed that at least 1.5 million pounds of PCB's are documented to have gone into Silver Lake and the Housatonic River over the course of more than half a century. Few if any with the company actually know -- or want to acknowledge -- just how much more may actually have been dumped, sumped and pumped over that lengthy period.

Further, that figure does not include tons of contaminated industrial wastes which lay buried throughout Berkshire County including PCB-laced Fuller's Earth, transformers, capacitors and miscellaneous industrial detritus disposed of by G.E. personnel and its sub-contractors over the course of nearly one hundred years of the firm's Pittsfield operations (starting in 1890 with Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company, in which G.E. bought control in 1903).

Given the acknowledged $1.33 billion it is costing G.E. to clean-up the claimed 1.3 million pounds of PCB's in the Hudson River, and given that the going rate for PCB remediation thus appears to be about $1023 per pound, from collection to final disposal, it's this kind of real money -- more than $1.534 billion for remediation of the Housatonic River, Woods Pond, the river flood plain, and Silver Lake -- that G.E. is now trying to avoid having to pay out.

G.E.'s top management is no doubt well aware that a complete and thorough remediation of PCB's tied to its former Pittsfield operations could easily trump by hundreds of millions of dollars the amount the firm already acknowledges spending on Hudson River remediation.

By lobbying the public with a front group like 1Berkshire, G.E. is thus attempting to rustle up public opinion behind the idea that G.E. in the spirit of environmental preservation should be allowed to avoid altogether actually having to remove any of its toxics plaguing the Housatonic River and flood plain (and poisoning the river's fish, and the river's mammals, and the river's birds, and the river's amphibians, and the river's reptiles, and the river's insects -- not to mention Pittsfield's neighborhoods, Silver Lake, etc.).

If G.E. ends up being ordered by U.S.E.P.A. to do a thorough remediation, the likely cost of such clean-up ($1.534 billion in today's dollars) calculates to be about five thousand times the $300,000 the company is currently on record as having contributed to 1Berkshire (money that is subsidizing the current disinformation campaign).

G.E.'s gambit in Berkshire County appears to be the same one the company tried (and failed with) in 2000 over whether it should be required to dredge its PCB's out of the Hudson River: Spend a little money now on fright ads and a disinformation campaign -- and if the public buys into the lie -- then that will prove more cost effective than having to spend five thousand times that amount doing actual remediation work later on.

A $1.5 Billion Stimulus to the Berkshire Economy?

Questions which should be posed to the movers-and-shakers and other leading lights in Berkshire County who have signed-on to 1Berkshire's bandwagon seeking to limit or stop PCB remediation:
Where do you think $1.5 billion expended over the course of ten years on remediation might end-up being spent locally by those actually doing the clean-up work?
Given that Berkshire County's unemployment rate is over 8%, wouldn't an additional $1.5 billion coming into the county be a good thing for the region's economic health?
Wouldn't jobs paying union scale on these remediation projects be of enormous benefit to the local economy?
Don't equipment operators and those driving to and from remediation sites need to eat, buy fuel, consume groceries, and sleep someplace (if away from home)?
Wouldn't state and local governments benefit from taxes collected on sales, meals and lodging to those involved with the clean-up? #####

ObamaCare Repeal: Harry Reid Confronted in Gourmet Market

2011-02-01T17:00:00.019-05:00

by G.M. Heller
Published: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 05:00 P.M. EST.

McLean, VA -- U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) may never go grocery shopping for his wife again.
While shopping this past Saturday afternoon amongst the food aisles at his local gourmet grocer in McLean, Virginia, Sen. Reid came across a fellow shopper who recognized him and asked a question that the senior senator from Nevada plainly did not want to answer.
The private citizen acknowledged upfront to the U.S. Senate's most powerful Democrat that he was a Republican and wanted to know from Mr. Reid himself why the Majority Leader was refusing to allow the just-passed House bill to repeal ObamaCare to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote.
Mr. Reid, walking beside the store's imported bottled condiments, responded to his questioner that he was focused on his shopping right now and did not wish to discuss the matter.
Mr. Reid's Republican antagonist was not to be put off and persisted in his questioning.
Leader Reid, who by now was perusing the store's extensive cheese selection, refused to say anything further.
Unfazed by the stony silence emanating from the Majority Leader -- and apparently not at all bothered by the unamused look on the face of the plainclothes Capitol Police officer shadowing the Majority Leader -- the persistent questioner was not yet ready to withdraw.
In a store crowded this busy Saturday afternoon with shoppers from tony McLean and surrounding Fairfax County, where the federal government-fueled economy makes per capita income and spending here amongst the highest in the nation, people know this gourmet grocery for its line of Prime, Natural, and Kobe-style beef, excellent wine list, fine cheeses and other high-end delicacies.
Amongst all this recession chic, Mr. Reid's Republican interrogator decided now was the time to go public.
In a voice that could be heard on the other side of this medium-sized food emporium, the shopper with ObamaCare Repeal on his mind -- no shrinking violet he -- loudly declared to his fellow gourmands (many in lines waiting to check-out) that indeed the graying personage standing right there amongst them was none other than "U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," and, pointing directly at Mr. Reid, said, "This man is personally holding-up the ObamaCare Repeal bill by refusing to allow it to be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote," and which law if left on the books "can eventually bankrupt the United States of America."
From the check-out area came applause, apparently at the spectacle.
The stony -- now red -- faced Sen. Reid, appearing both annoyed and mortified at being the focus of this unexpected public scolding in the midst of what was to be a quiet moment spent Saturday shopping, tried not to be noticed -- hard to do when one is waiting in a check-out line with someone just a few feet away loudly gesticulating and pointing.
Exiting the establishment as soon as practical, Sen. Reid, with more of his security detail now in evidence, hopped aboard one of two waiting black SUV's.
The mini-convoy pulled away from the curb and out of the parking lot, out of reach, for now, of interaction with pesky opinionated partisans. ###

Pittsfield Economic Development Authority

2011-01-01T10:00:00.051-05:00

PEDA

William Stanley Business Park
"More than a Business Park"
"'Business park' just does not do it justice."
"Located in creative Pittsfield, Massachusetts. 413/494-7332"

The enabling legislation that created the
'Pittsfield Economic Development Authority'

---------------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Acts of 1998
"St. 1998, c. 194, §268, as amended by St. 1998, c. 486, §2."

[St. 1998, c. 486,] SECTION 2. Chapter 295 of the acts of 1996 is hereby amended by striking out sections 1 to 20, inclusive, as amended by section 268 of chapter 194 of the acts of 1998, and inserting in place thereof the following 22 sections:-

Section 1. The city of Pittsfield, by majority vote of its city council, may, subject to the provisions of this act, create a body corporate to be known as the Pittsfield Economic Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the authority.

Section 2. The purposes of the authority shall be to acquire properties contaminated by oil or hazardous material, conduct response actions thereon and construct, develop, maintain, lease, convey or otherwise transfer such property for the beneficial reuse or development of such property to promote economic development on behalf of the city of Pittsfield. Said board, as defined herein, acting for and on behalf of said authority, may take by eminent domain under chapter 79 of the General Laws or acquire by purchase or otherwise any disposal site in the city of Pittsfield, or a portion thereof, as defined by section 2 of chapter 21E of the General Laws, hereinafter referred to as chapter 21E and associated lands, properties, water rights, and rights of ways may c response actions pursuant to the requirements of said chapter 21E and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto; may construct, maintain or operate and lease such industrial or commercialfacilities acquired by the authority; may sell, by negotiation with the city of Pittsfield or a private at public auction, any property, including land acquired by the authority pursuant to this act and which in the authority's opinion is no longer needed in the performance of the powers and duties conferred and imposed on it by this act; and may, from time to time, lease any property which in the authority's opinion is not needed for the purposes of this act; and may do things proper or necessary for the purposes of this act; provided, however, that the authority shall not take in fee any land of a railroad corporation and shall not enter upon or construct, maintain or operate any industrial or commercial facility within the location as it may agree up such corporation or, in the case of failure to agree, as approved by the department of telecommunications and energy.

Section 3. The authority may enter into agreements to indemnify and hold harmless future owners or operators of properties acquired by the authority pursuant to this act from and against liability pursuant to sections 4, 4A and 5 of chapter 21E of the General Laws with respect to any releases or threats of release of oil or hazardous material that first began to occur before such owners or operators acquire ownership or possession of the property; provided, however, that such indemnification shall not apply to any violation of or change to a restriction in use imposed on the property as part of a response action conducted by the authority. Notwithstanding any provision of said chapter 21E to the contrary, such owner or operator who acquires ownership or possession of property from the authority shall not be deemed an owner or operator for purposes of said chapter 21E with respect to any release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material that first began to occur at or from a property before the time that such owner or operator acquired ownership or possession; provided, however, that: (1) such owner or operator is a bona fide new owner or operator and is not affiliated with any other person potentially liable for response costs or damages to natural resources caused by such release or threat of release through any direct or indirect familial relationship or any contractual, corporate or financial relationship other than that created by the instruments by which title to the property is conveyed or financed; (2) such owner or operator provides reasonable access to the property to employees, agents and contractors of the department of environmental protection to conduct response actions and to other persons intending to conduct response actions; and (3) such owner or operator does not violate or fail to comply with any restriction on future use of the site imposed pursuant to section 6 of said chapter 21E and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. When such owner or operator is not an owner or operator pursuant to this definition, any person who owned or operated the property immediately prior to the authority's acquisition of ownership or possession shall be deemed the owner or operator pursuant to said chapter 21E.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this definition, the authority's tenants, subtenants or other person using or acquiring a property from the owner may be deemed an owner or operator with respect to any release or threat of release that first begins to occur at or from a property after the time that the authority takes ownership or possession of it for any purpose authorized by this act.

Section 3A. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, the authority may, in its reasonable discretion, provide limited indemnification to any industrial corporation that has been the owner of any property located in the city of Pittsfield and which property has been conveyed to said authority by said corporation.

Any decision by said authority to provide such indemnity, and the terms of any such indemnification agreement, shall be limited by the provisions of this section. Pursuant to this subsection, with respect to any claim that arises from or is associated with the past ownership, use or occupancy of said property by said corporation, said authority may indemnify said corporation from and against (1) liability pursuant to chapter 21E of the General Laws, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 6901 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. sections 2601 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. sections 1251 et seq., and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7401 et seq.; (2) liability for property damage or personal injury under the common law; and (3) any other claims for recovery of environmental remediation, or response costs; provided, however, that said authority shall not indemnify said corporation from and against any penalties that are assessed by any agency of state or federal government or by any regulatory authority; and provided, further, that said authority shall not indemnify said corporation from and against liability or costs that said corporation may incur in connection with any hazardous or other material at any property other than the property that said authority has acquired.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as authorizing any immunity from suit or any defense from liability in connection with any claim raised by any third party against said corporation, limiting or altering the provisions of subsection (f) of section 5 of chapter 21E of the General Laws, or limiting the right of any party to bring any claim against said corporation. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as giving rise to any liability or indemnification obligation on behalf of the commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision of the commonwealth, including, without limitation, the city of Pittsfield, but excluding said authority to the extent that said authority enters into said indemnification agreement.

(c) Said authority may, in its reasonable discretion, indemnify said corporation from and against claims for property damage, personal injury, or reimbursement for environmental remediation or response costs, where such damages, injuries or costs are caused by an act or failure to act of a subsequent owner, operator or tenant of such property that results in a release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material that is first discovered subsequent to the transfer of property to said authority; provided, however, that said authority shall (1) obtain insurance coverage in such amounts that it deems appropriate and commercially available to carry out or otherwise support any indemnification obligations it assumes, and (2) determine that the public interest in the economic development of the city of Pittsfield will best be served by entering into such indemnification agreement.

(d) Before indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify said corporation as set forth in subsection (a), said authority shall first determine: (1) that said corporation has remediated said property, or has entered into enforceable agreements with state and federal agencies having regulatory authority over remediation plans and activities to remediate said property so as to presently comply, or be legally obligated to comply within a reasonable time, with the provisions of federal and state laws referenced in subsection (a); (2) that the authority shall obtain insurance coverage in amounts adequate to carry out or otherwise support any indemnification obligations it assumes, at a cost which, in its reasonable opinion, will not unduly burden or interfere with the operations of the authority; and (3) that the public interest in the economic development of the city of Pittsfield will best be served by entering into such indemnification agreement.

(e) Pursuant to this section, said authority shall not enter into any such indemnification agreement that will have the effect of indemnifying said corporation from and against liability for acts or failures to act of which said corporation was aware or should have been aware, in the exercise of due diligence, at the time of such indemnification agreement and which said corporation was under any statutory, regulatory or contractual obligation to disclose to said authority or to a state or federal agency or, regulatory authority with jurisdiction over environmental matters, but which it failed to disclose prior to entering into such indemnification agreement. Any provision of any such indemnification agreement between said authority and said industrial corporation which is contrary to the requirements of this subsection shall be void and shall be severed from such indemnification agreement as a violation of the public policy of the commonwealth; provided, however, that the remainder of such indemnification agreement, to the extent that it is not contrary with this subsection, shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4. (a) The authority may enter into agreements with its response action contractors to indemnify and hold harmless its response action contractor against any liability for negligence, including legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed a figure established by the indemnification agreement pursuant to the terms of this section. In no event shall the amount of indemnification to be provided under an indemnification agreement exceed $2,000,000 for a single occurrence involving the release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material. No indemnification shall be provided pursuant to an indemnification agreement under this section if the response action contractor fails to meet the standard of care which is the degree of care that a reasonable and diligent hazardous waste site cleanup professional licensed pursuant to sections 19 and 19J, inclusive, of chapter 21A shall exercise when rendering a waste site cleanup activity opinion pursuant to said sections 19 and 19J or if the action or omission which gives rise to the claim is not within the scope of the response action contract.

(b) The indemnification provided under this section shall apply only to response action contractor liability arising out of response activity conducted by the response action contractor in response to a release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material.

Section 5. The authority shall be authorized to take or arrange for necessary response actions as determined by reference to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, as defined in section 3 of chapter 21E of the General Laws, or for response actions as determined in reference to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., amended by 15 U.S.C. 2642 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The authority shall be entitled to reimbursement from any other person liable for such release or threat of release for the reasonable costs of such response actions, including all litigation costs and attorneys' fees. All claims for contribution, reimbursement or equitable share by the authority pursuant to this section and chapter 21E of the General Laws shall be brought in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 11A of said chapter 21E.

The authority may enter into agreements with prior owners or operators of a site or vessel or persons who may have otherwise caused or may be legally responsible for releases or threats of releases of oil or hazardous material, to conduct or reimburse the authority for the costs of response actions. In conducting any response action pursuant to the requirements of said chapter 21E and the regulations promulgated thereto, the authority shall not be exempt from any compliance or permit fees.

Section 6. In the event that a response action or portion of a response action conducted by the authority includes a restriction on future use of the property pursuant to section 6 of chapter 21E and the regulations promulgated thereto, the authority shall have no liability or responsibility for any future or subsequent violation of such restriction or for any necessary and appropriate response action on account of use of the property by a future owner or operator contrary to the requirements of such restriction.

Section 7. Except as expressly provided by this section, the authority shall not be deemed an "owner" or "operator" under the provisions of clauses (2) and (5) of paragraph (a) of section 5 of chapter 21E of the General Laws and shall be excluded from the definition of "owner" or "operator" with respect to releases and threats of releases that first begin to occur before the authority acquires ownership or possession of a property; provided, however, that upon acquiring ownership or possession of a property, said authority shall:

(1) provide notice to the department of environmental protection, immediately upon obtaining knowledge of a release or threat of release of oil or hazardous material for which notification is required pursuant to, and in compliance with, section 7 of said chapter 21E or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto;

(2) provide reasonable access to the property to employees, agents and contractors of said department to conduct response actions, if necessary, and to other persons intending to conduct necessary response actions;

(3) take or arrange for any and all response actions necessary and appropriate regarding releases or threats of releases under said chapter 21E and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

In the event that the department incurs response action costs in connection with any site acquired by the authority, the authority shall reimburse the department for such reasonable response actions costs.

Section 8. There is hereby established the Pittsfield Economic Development Board, hereinafter called the board. The authority shall be under the management and control of said board.

Section 9. The board may enter upon any land for the purposes of making surveys, environmental site assessments, test pits or borings and, for the carrying out of said purposes, may, by purchase or otherwise, temporarily occupy any lands or take property by eminent domain under chapter 79 of the General Laws.

Section 10. The authority, by vote of the board, may issue, from time to time, general obligation serial bonds or notes to pay for the costs of capital outlays in connection with assessment, containment and removal activities at properties acquired by the authority and in connection with the construction and operation of industrial and commercial facilities and such other works as may be required, including land damages and costs of demolition of existing structures on lands that may be required.

Such bonds shall be issued in such amounts as the authority, acting by and through the board, may determine and the authority may refund any such bonds and notes. Such serial bonds and notes may be callable with or without premium and shall contain such terms and conditions, bear such rates of issue, be sold in such a manner, at private or public sale, and mature in such times and in such amounts as the board shall determine, provided, however, that each issue of such bonds and notes shall be payable in annual installments, the first of which shall be payable not later than two years after its date and the last of which shall be payable not more than 30 years from such date.

If the board votes to issue serial bonds or notes, said board may authorize the issuance in the name of the authority of general obligation temporary notes for a period of not more than two years in anticipation of the money to be received from the sale of such serial bonds or notes. The time within which such temporary notes are issued shall not be extended by reason of the making of such temporary loans beyond the time fixed in the order authorizing such temporary bonds or notes.

For the purpose of paying the expenses of operations including, without limitation, any principal or interest due or about to become due on any serial bond or note issued by the authority in which funds are not available, the board in the name of the authority may issue, from time to time, general obligation temporary notes of the authority in anticipation of any revenues, gifts, grants or receipts from any public or private source.

General obligation temporary notes in anticipation of any revenues, gifts, grants or receipts shall be payable not more than one year from their date and shall not exceed in principal amount the amount of the reasonably known and measurable revenues, gifts, grants or receipts in anticipation of which they are issued.

General obligation temporary notes issued under this section for a shorter period than the maximum permitted may be renewed by the issuance of other general obligation temporary notes maturing within the required period; provided, however, that the period from the date of issue of the original temporary note to the date of maturity of the renewal note shall not exceed the maximum period for which the original note may have been issued. Such temporary notes or renewal notes may be sold at discount or with interest payable at or before maturity.

Notes or serial bonds authorized by this section shall be signed by the treasurer of the board and countersigned by the chairman of the board and serial bonds and notes shall have the authority's seal affixed. Section 16B of chapter 44 of the General Laws shall be applicable to such serial bonds and notes.

Section 11. The board shall annually determine the amount required for the payment of principal and interest on such serial bonds and notes issued or to be renewed by the authority which shall be due during the ensuing calendar year and shall also determine such other amounts as may be necessary to maintain and operate the authority during such year, including capital outlay items the cost of which is not to be funded and for all other matters for which the authority is required to raise money, and, after determining such payments and amounts, shall promptly prepare a report which shall be provided to the mayor of the city of Pittsfield.

Section 12. To meet the costs of construction, maintenance and operation of the facilities authorized by this act, the authority may file an application for, or accept and use, any federal or state funds or grants or any federal or state assistance or both provided therefor under any federal or state law or funds from any other sources.

The authority may also apply for and receive contributions from public or private funding sources for the establishment of a Capitalized Mitigation Fund to be used for the purpose of financing project costs and administered as a revolving loan fund to the city of Pittsfield. Such contributions shall be reported in a yearly report of private contributions to be prepared by the board which shall, not later than February 1 of each year, submit a copy to the house and senate committees on ways and means, the state auditor and the chief executive and city council members of the city of Pittsfield. The authority may expend funds from said Capitalized Mitigation Fund on any project only after a majority vote of the board. The city of Pittsfield, receiving funding from said fund, shall prepare a complete financial report detailing cost analysis and environmental impact.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of the authority to accept gifts, grants or contributions from any public, private or charitable source.

Section 13. No lands, rights of ways or other easements, property, structures or rights acquired by the authority, as herein provided and located in the city of Pittsfield shall be assessed or taxed by the city of Pittsfield so long as such property is owned by the authority, response actions are on-going and the property and improvements thereon are not in beneficial reuse by a third party as so determined in the judgement of the board. Following the completion of the response actions or transfer or upon beneficial reuse of the property, it shall be assessed or taxed by the city of Pittsfield.

Section 14. The board shall consist of seven members appointed by the mayor of the city of Pittsfield. Official action shall require the affirmative vote of at least said majority of the board.

In appointing such members, the mayor shall choose at least one member who is experienced with or knowledgeable about the financing or issuance of bonds, such member to be appointed for a term of two years; one member who is experienced with or knowledgeable about environmental matters, including contamination of land, such member to be appointed for a term of two years; one member who is experienced with or knowledgeable about economic development and planning, such member to be appointed for a term of three years; one member who lives in or will represent the interest of the neighborhoods which will be most directly affected by the activities of the authority, such member to be appointed for a term of one year and three members who shall be appointed for a term of one year each. The mayor may serve as a member of the board.

At the expiration of the term of any member or upon the resignation or disqualification of any member, the mayor shall appoint a new member for an equivalent term as the member whose seat the new member is replacing. Each member whose term has expired shall serve until the qualification of a successor. A board member may be reappointed.

Section 15. The board shall appoint and determine the compensation of an authority director who shall be the chief executive officer of the authority and shall administer the affairs and direct the work of the authority as approved by the board. Such director may, in the discretion of the board, also hold elective office, notwithstanding any provisions of chapter 268A or any other of the General Laws to the contrary. The board shall set forth the powers and duties of the director in its by-laws.

The director may, upon approval of the board or as otherwise provided in the authority's by-laws, enter into agreements for professional construction services to be provided to the authority by private contractors. The director shall be familiar with economic development in Berkshire county and shall possess such other qualifications as are determined by the board.

Section 16. The authority shall have a seal consisting of a circular die bearing the words "Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Pittsfield Economic Development Authority", which seal may be used whenever deemed advisable by the board on papers and documents issued or executed by the board or by any officer or employee designated by the board.

Section 17. The board shall prepare and adopt by-laws describing and stipulating its organization and operations. The board members shall annually, in the month of April, select a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary, from among the membership who shall act as an executive committee. Members of the board may receive compensation from the authority which shall not exceed $500 per year for a board member or $1,000 per year for the chairman, vice-chairman or secretary. Board members may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in performance of their duties on approval of the board.

The board shall appoint and may, at its pleasure, remove a treasurer and a clerk who shall not be members of the board. Both offices, if the board deems advisable, may be held by the same person. The treasurer shall give the board a bond payable to the authority with a surety company authorized to transact business within the commonwealth and satisfactory to the board, such surety in such sums as the board may prescribe, and conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of treasurer. The duties of the treasurer and the clerk shall be those usually pertaining to such offices and, in addition, such as may be from time to time prescribed by the board. The board may retain legal counsel for any and all appropriate purposes.

The director, with the approval of the board, shall from time to time appoint or employ such other experts, agents, officers, clerks and other employees as deemed necessary and shall determine their duties. The salaries or compensation of all persons appointed or employed under authority of this section shall be determined by the board and, together with other expenses, shall be paid by the authority and shall be considered a part of the expense of maintenance of the authority. The board shall establish an office within the city of Pittsfield in which its business may be conducted and in which plans, documents, records and other papers relating to its business, land and other works and properties shall be kept.

The authority shall at all times keep full and accurate accounts of its receipts, expenditures, disbursements, assets and liabilities which shall be open at all times for inspection by the city of Pittsfield or by any officer or duly appointed agent of the commonwealth.

The board shall make a report each year of its activities for the preceding year and shall, prior to February 1, submit a copy of such report to the state auditor and to the city of Pittsfield. A copy of such report shall also be submitted to the department of environmental protection.

Section 18. Initial organization of the board established under the provisions of section 8 shall take place within 180 days after the affirmative vote of the city council of Pittsfield for the formation of the authority. If the board does not organize itself and form the authority within 180 days, the action of the city council shall be null and void.

Section 19. The authority shall provide for early direct community involvement in each significant phase of response activities taken under this authority. This shall include providing the community with access to information necessary to develop comments on decisions regarding site characterization, risks posed by the site and selection of assessment, containment, and removal actions.

Process for involvement: (1) site assessment - whenever practicable, during the site assessment, the authority shall solicit and evaluate the concerns and interests of the community likely affected by the site by whatever means deemed appropriate by the authority; (2) site cleanup - after assessment and feasibility study and a method of cleanup has been determined, the authority shall solicit the views and preferences of the community likely affected by this cleanup including the disposition of the oil, hazardous material, pollutants, or contaminants at the site.

Section 20. The department of environmental protection shall promulgate rules and regulations, after notice and hearing in accordance with chapter 30A of the General Laws, to set up and implement a pilot project in the city of Pittsfield for the purpose of reuse and redevelopment to promote economic growth at said site. The department shall involve in the process all interested parties including, but not limited to, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the attorney general of the commonwealth, the elected officials in the city of Pittsfield and the Massachusetts office of business development or its successor. The department shall prepare a preliminary plan not later than 120 days after the effective date of this act and shall publish notice thereof in the state environmental monitor. Such pilot project shall require significant economic activity for the city of Pittsfield providing net new jobs as defined by chapter 19 of the acts of 1993. Such pilot project shall include: (1) allowing the long-term use of one or more temporary solutions, as such term is defined in subsection (f) of section 3A of chapter 21E of the General Laws, to satisfy the remediation requirements of said section 3A; (2) establishing appropriate reporting and monitoring requirements for the construction and maintenance of such temporary solutions; (3) defining the department's responsibilities for reviewing and approving such temporary solutions and reporting and monitoring thereof; (4) providing for an appropriate and efficient process to allow public participation with respect to the department's approval and review of such temporary solutions as set forth in clause (3); (5) defining the limited circumstances in which, upon petition of the department or another person or party, a permanent solution may be required in lieu of the continuation of such temporary solutions; and (6) providing appropriate incentives, within the limits of state laws or regulations, to induce any participant in such a pilot project to complete remediation expeditiously.

Section 21. The authority may, in its reasonable discretion, enter into a binding agreement with federal and state natural resource trustees, representatives and other parties, including, without limitation, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the United States department of the interior, the Massachusetts executive office of environmental affairs and the Connecticut department of environmental protection, in which agreement said authority may agree to pay a portion of its net revenues to such trustees, representatives and other parties, as compensation for natural resource damages resulting from the release of polychlorinated biphenyls into the Housatonic river and its environs.

SEE:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter486
--------------------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

When Will The Publisher Stop Covering For The Banker?

2010-06-17T09:44:00.405-04:00

Andrew Mick

Angelo C. Stracuzzi

Just what does Greylock's disgraced ex-CEO have on The Berkshire Eagle's Andrew Mick?

What else is The Berkshire Eagle failing to report?

by G.M. Heller

Published: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 12.34 P.M. EST.

Pittsfield, MA --- Why has Andrew Mick, Publisher and CEO at The Berkshire Eagle, been covering-up for Angelo C. Stracuzzi, former President and CEO at Greylock Federal Credit Union?

On Friday, June 4, 2010, Mr. Stracuzzi, 61, the former Pittsfield City Council president, resigned (some say he was fired) from the board of trustees at nationally-recognized Greylock Federal Credit Union, where Mr. Stracuzzi has served for years as the organization's high-profile, highly paid president, CEO, and advertising spokesperson.

Mr. Stracuzzi's face along with the familiar tagline, "Tell 'em Angelo sent you!," has been a staple of Greylock's advertising campaigns for years, while on-air his cheerful upbeat delivery touting the credit union's financial products is well-known to radio listeners throughout the region.

This surprising turn of events allegedly stemmed from trustees' concerns over what Greylock board chair Sheila LaBarbera called, in a statement issued late that Friday afternoon after boardmembers met with outside counsel, 'potential conflicts-of-interest' in the handling of Mr. Stracuzzi's probation in a misdemeanor case for which he had been convicted five years earlier in another state.

Mr. Stracuzzi pled guilty to one count each of assault & battery and criminal mischief in May, 2005 in York County Superior Court in Alfred, Maine.

This startling revelation that Mr. Stracuzzi had had a run-in with Maine cops only came about because The Eagle had reported it in its Sunday May 30 edition as part of a different story that The Eagle apparently believed was more newsworthy.

The Eagle was running a story on a local angle in response to having been upstaged by The Boston Globe just days earlier when The Globe's Spotlight Team broke news that the Massachusetts Probation Department, under state Commissioner John J. O'Brien since 1998, has been rife with patronage hires, nepotism, influence peddling, favoritism, and questionable quid pro quo campaign contributions. (Who would have thought this could happen in Massachusetts?)

The Globe series made specific mention of a patronage (read: nepotism) hire in the North Adams probation office who'd also been alleged to be a 'no-show,' and who, after complaints had been received by department headquarters in Boston, had subsequently been transferred to the South County office at near double his North Adams salary.

It was a story The Eagle should have known about and should have been the first to report long ago, but never did.

So in the wake of The Globe's scathing statewide scoop, The Eagle, in an article dated May 30, 2010 and headlined "Probation Cloud Hits County", reported on what appeared to be a local conflict-of-interest from five years earlier when Berkshire Superior Court's probation office in Pittsfield was given authority to oversee a local man who'd been convicted in Maine and whose probation was transferred to Massachusetts under the so-called Interstate Compact.

That man was Angelo Stracuzzi.

The conflict-of-interest to which Greylock chair LaBarbera referred in her June 4 press release stemmed from Mr. Stracuzzi's probation having apparently been overseen by his friend and fellow Greylock board member (and the credit union's former chair) Clifford Nilan, whose day job was, and is, chief of probation at Berkshire Superior Court.

(Except that the state Probation Department is now backtracking, according to The Eagle, and is now claiming that Mr. Nilan did not "play a direct role in supervising Stracuzzi," yet department headquarters in Boston is at odds to say just who did oversee Mr. Stracuzzi.)

Despite being subordinated within an article about a different scandal, that first mention in The Eagle of a heretofore unreported criminal matter involving one of Berkshire County's leading political and business figures was surprise enough.

But what caused even more public consternation and speculation (especially online within The Eagle's Topix threads) was that, after acknowledging in the May 30 article that it had actually been aware of Mr. Stracuzzi's conviction for at least five months (since January, according to The Eagle, when it sent emails to Probation Department headquarters), The Eagle after all that time was still only able to give the most vague description and sparse accounting as to what actually led to a criminal complaint being issued against Mr. Stracuzzi in the first place.

What kind of incident six years earlier could possibly have caused a successful bank executive and former Pittsfield City Council president to be criminally charged in a coastal resort town like Biddeford, Maine?

The Eagle's May 30 eye-opener contained little else about Maine's July 2004 criminal case against Mr. Stracuzzi, nor any explanation how or why he happened to be in Biddeford.

Prominently reported in that article, though, was Mr. Stracuzzi's own explanation for what happened.

According to that May 30 report, "Stracuzzi, 61, told The Eagle last week that he was charged with assault after he pushed a young male hitchhiker out of his car in Biddeford one afternoon. Stracuzzi said he believes the criminal mischief charge was leveled against him because he broke the hitchhiker's necklace."

Bad enough that were there an actual crime, The Eagle was relying upon the alleged perpetrator as its witness to relay what happened (like the fox being interviewed about goings-on at night around the chicken coop), but The Eagle then failed to present any evidence, source, or details to confirm Mr. Stracuzzi's version of events.

For example, The Eagle omitted any reference to, or interview with, Sarah Churchill, an attorney and specialist in criminal trial litigation with the high-priced law firm Strike, Goodwin & O'Brien in Portland, Maine, whom court records indicate represented Mr. Stracuzzi before York County Superior Court Judge G. Arthur Brennan.

In addition, The Eagle, other than including Mr. Stracuzzi's initial reference to a "young male hitchhiker," failed to state whether anyone from the newspaper tried to contact that individual to obtain his side of the story, especially since that individual's name was indeed available from court records (despite being a juvenile at the time).

Not only that, but The Eagle omitted any reference whatsoever to the Biddeford Police investigation that followed, or to the detectives' report that formed the basis for issuing Mr. Stracuzzi a summons.

Also omitted were quotes from those Biddeford Police detectives, even statements made 'not for attribution'.

Further omitted was public information on file at York County Superior Court in the clerk's office, data which could easily have been obtained via telephone just by speaking with court personnel. (Alfred, Maine is a quiet, friendly town of 2500, and the superior court clerk's office is open from 12-4 weekdays.)

Just about the only thing that was being acknowledged by the newspaper was that: "The Eagle has formally requested more information about the case, but the Biddeford Police Department and York County District Attorney Mark Lawrence have yet to respond."

The fact that Biddeford is 222 miles away -- by car less than four hours from Pittsfield -- apparently made it impossible for The Eagle during the Berkshires' incredibly busy mud season -- January through May -- to dispatch anybody to Biddeford to interview anyone in the police station which investigated the case, in the D.A.'s office which prosecuted the case, in Biddeford District Court where the case was initially heard, or in York County Superior Court where sentence was ultimately pronounced and records are maintained.

Historically, The Eagle has shown great ingenuity and unabashed energy in reporting local crime stories and criminal proceedings, doing so on matters horrific and benign.

The newspaper's daily regimen invariably includes even the smallest details carefully lifted and sifted from police and court records, guaranteed to embarrass any Berkshire defendant, his extended family, and friends.

The Eagle is known to publicize and even to amplify in excruciating detail and without reserve the who, what, where, how, when, and often the why of any incident.

The criminal prosecution, minutia from every subsequent court proceeding, and the court climax with a detailed listing of everything the judge's sentence imposes is all standard fare in The Eagle.

There's little that goes on in Berkshire County's courts about which The Eagle's readers are not made fully aware.

In nearly every case, except apparently, this one.

(And also, of course, those matters involving patronage, nepotism, favoritism, and no-show hiring in Berkshire County's Probation Department offices.)

Inexplicably, The Eagle, even to this day, still has failed to report what actually happened in Biddeford in July 2004 that led police in that municipality to issue a criminal summons to one of Berkshire County's leading citizens.

Unreported in the May 30 article, for example, is just why Maine prosecutors would accept nothing less than a guilty plea on something so seemingly silly as what Mr. Stracuzzi claims was a dust-up with a hitchhiker?

The Eagle's follow-up report published June 3, headlined "Probation to Review Case," added little to the sum of public knowledge concerning Mr. Stracuzzi's contretemps in Biddeford.

Likewise the newsflash posted to The Eagle's Web site late the afternoon of June 4, that broke the story headlined "Stracuzzi Resigns Greylock Board, Placed on Leave as CEO," did not do any better in adding to the sum of the public's knowledge as to what actually transpired in Biddeford, or to explain how whatever it was could have created such a dramatic ripple effect six years later.

This was like reporting on the devastation from a Level 5 hurricane without actually reporting that it had ever rained, let alone been windy.

It took another week, until June 11, for The Eagle finally to acknowledge in a reference buried deep within a related article, this one simply headlined "Stracuzzi Resigns as CEO," that: "Stracuzzi's latest legal headache stems from separate 2004 incidents in Maine, according to York County Superior Court officials. Stracuzzi was charged with six crimes in connection with two back-to-back incidents in July 2004, including two counts of soliciting sex from a minor, according to a spokeswoman in the court clerk's office."

"Separate 2004 incidents in Maine"?
"Charged with six crimes"?
"Two back-to-back incidents in July 2004"?
"Two counts of soliciting sex from a minor"?

Please excuse our ignorance, but from where had all this suddenly come?

What else had yet to be disclosed by The Eagle?

What else was The Eagle omitting from this image shattering news story?

Worse, what had actually happened during those incidents in Biddeford -- now apparently two of them back-to-back -- that was still not being reported by The Eagle?

What the public had initially been led to believe was just some momentary nonsense with a hitchhiker and broken jewelry, was now turning into something with strange and sinister implications.

Yet, even with The Eagle's 'come lately' admission on June 11 that there had been allegations of multiple incidents and crimes, even with that tacit acknowledgement, The Eagle was still omitting relevant facts and details about which The Eagle's editors were now well aware at that point, and which related directly to the "two back-to-back incidents" The Eagle was now finally acknowledging.

Such as: that the alleged "minor" (note The Eagle's use of the singular) involved in these matters was, in fact, two different boys, aged 15 and 13, respectively.

Hence, the two separate incidents.

Such as: that the incident alleged by Mr. Stracuzzi to have taken place during the day, as was initially reported by The Eagle May 30, appears actually to have taken place in the evening.

In fact, each incident had been called into Biddeford Police in late evening, specifically 9:36 P.M. in the first instance, Monday, July 26, 2004; and then one the following night at 10:00 P.M., according to the blotter at the Biddeford Police station.

Such as: that Judge Brennan ordered psychological evaluation and counseling as a condition for Mr. Stracuzzi's probation.

That is something which could have real-life implications for juvenile males near and far should Mr. Stracuzzi or the Berkshire County Probation Office fail to follow through on Judge Brennan's order.

Imagine if what happened in Biddeford were to happen elsewhere in some future time because either psychological evaluation and counseling had not occurred as ordered, or because Mr. Stracuzzi's treatment was not continued as needed.

As it stands right now, The Berkshire Eagle's readers still do not officially know just what happened in Biddeford, Maine when Angelo Stracuzzi wheeled into town that balmy evening in July 2004.

Nor do The Eagle's readers know why Greylock's board formally accepted the resignations of both Mr. Stracuzzi and his fellow board member Clifford Nilan; nor even why Mr. Stracuzzi formally resigned his position as president and CEO.

The Berkshire Eagle continues to stonewall, to cover-up, to dissemble, to omit, and to obfuscate, apparently on behalf, and for the benefit, of Mr. Stracuzzi.

Why is The Eagle's Publisher and CEO, Andrew Mick, allowing any of this to take place on his watch?

[Editor's Note: Andrew Mick reports ultimately to William Dean Singleton of Denver, Colorado, founder and CEO of MediaNews Group. Mr. Singleton is also chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press (AP), and, according to Wikipedia, "serves as publisher of a number of MediaNews' dailies, including the Denver Post, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Detroit News."]

State of Maine v. Angelo Stracuzzi

2010-06-03T20:10:00.074-04:00

What The Berkshire Eagle Fails to Report
by G.M. Heller

The Berkshire Eagle has had the following information since Tuesday, June 1 regarding Angelo C. Stracuzzi's recently exposed (by The Eagle itself in an article published May 30) run-in with police in the coastal town of Biddeford, Maine in July 2004.

Mr. Stracuzzi is president and C.E.O. of Greylock Federal Credit Union and served for many years on the Pittsfield City Council both as a councilman and as that governing body's president.

Angelo C. Stracuzzi, president and C.E.O.,
Greylock Federal Credit Union

According to York County Superior Court records, Biddeford Police charged Mr. Stracuzzi with 'Patronizing Prostitution of a Minor' - Class D, 'Assault & Battery' - Class D, and 'Criminal Mischief' - Class D.

In two separate cases filed with the York County Superior Court, Mr. Stracuzzi was charged with the same three identical counts in each case.

The criminal complaints stemmed from separate incidents occurring a day apart, each incident involving a different underage male.

The first incident took place July 26th, 2004 (Criminal Docket No. 05-194) and was reported to Biddeford Police that same evening at 9:36 P.M..

The second incident occurred July 27th (Criminal Docket No. 04-2288) and appeared on the police blotter at 10:00 P.M. same night.

The boys' ages at the time were approximately 15 and 13 years-old, respectively.

Responsive to a Biddeford Police detective's investigation of the two separately filed incident reports, a summons was issued to Mr. Stracuzzi to appear in Biddeford District Court the following month and answer to the above-stated criminal charges.

Biddeford is about the same size as Pittsfield, Massachusetts and located on Maine's southern coast less than two hours north of Boston.

Maine's legal system specifies five classes of crimes ranging in descending order of severity from Class A to Class E.

Mr. Stracuzzi was being charged with Class D criminal misdemeanors.

To defend him, Mr. Stracuzzi hired criminal defense attorney Sarah Churchill, of the law firm Strike, Goodwin & O'Brien of Portland, Maine. "This firm", according to its Web site, "is engaged exclusively in the practice of criminal law including murder, all felony charges, OUIs, domestic violence, and all related misdemeanor matters."

Attorney Churchill "has handled several high profile criminal matters," according to her Web page, "including murder and gross sexual assault. Her area of practice focuses on criminal trial litigation."

SG&O's Web site also proclaims, "Our goal is to offer each and every one of our clients unparalleled service and dedication to ensure we reach a satisfactory resolution to your case. Should the State be unwilling to resolve your case to your satisfaction, we stand prepared to take the matter to trial."

At his arraignment in Biddeford District Court in August, 2004, Mr. Stracuzzi entered a plea of Not Guilty and requested trial by jury.

The matter was marked up for trial and ultimately transferred to York County Superior Court in Alfred, Maine, the county seat, 13 miles west of Biddeford.

In May 2005, state prosecutor Jeff Moskowitz (now a Maine state court judge) agreed to drop one of the cases against Mr. Stracuzzi along with one of the charges in the remaining case in exchange for Mr. Stracuzzi's guilty plea.

Presiding Judge G. Arthur Brennan accepted Mr. Stracuzzi's guilty plea and, according to The Berkshire Eagle, "On May 25, 2005, Stracuzzi was sentenced in York Superior Court to a 364-day suspended jail sentence and one year of probation after admitting to the misdemeanor charges."

What The Eagle conveniently and inexplicably omits in its report was that Judge Brennan also ordered Mr. Stracuzzi to get "Psychological evaluation, and counseling as needed".

This was a specific condition of Mr. Stracuzzi's probation.

Another probation condition not reported by The Eagle was that Mr. Stracuzzi was to have no contact with either of the two boys, both of whose names are listed on Judge Brennan's no contact order.

It is not publicly known yet whether the Massachusetts Probation Department saw to it that Mr. Stracuzzi obtained the psychological evaluation and counseling ordered by Judge Brennan.

It also is not publicly known yet exactly what Mr. Stracuzzi told his employers, the board of directors at Greylock Federal Credit Union (if indeed he told them anything at all at the time), but it appears that when Mr. Stracuzzi did finally acknowledge to the board his run-in with Biddeford Police, he was less than candid with boardmembers regarding the nature of the original charges against him as well as the subsequent probation conditions set by the Court.

Coincidentally, one of the few officials in Berkshire County having direct and authorized access to Mr. Stracuzzi's entire probation file (after it was transferred to Massachusetts from Maine's Department of Corrections under the Interstate Compact), and whose official responsibility as part of his day job was to be aware of the probation files of offenders under his legal juridiction, was none other than longtime GFCU boardmember Clifford Nilan, the bank's former chairman, who also, according to GFCU's 2009 annual report, "is Chief Probation Officer of Berkshire Superior Court".

[Editor's 24-hour late-breaking update: The board of directors of Greylock Federal Credit Union met with outside counsel on Friday, June 4, 2010 (from a law firm outside Berkshire County not affiliated with any local Berkshire law firms). Mid-afternoon, the board issued the following statement: "The directors of Greylock Federal Credit Union have accepted Angelo Stracuzzi's resignation from the Board of Directors and we have placed him on an administrative leave of absence from his position as CEO, while the board completes a full investigation of potential conflicts of interest. The Board has also accepted the resignation of Director Cliff Nilan. The board took its actions with full appreciation for the years of dedicated service and achievement under their leadership. We have full confidence in the ability of our senior management team to maintain Greylock's standards of excellence. Credit Union members will continue to receive the same level of outstanding service."<<<]

©2010 Berkshire Blog®/™
Copyright © Berkshire Blog. All Rights Reserved.
®/™ Trademarks of Berkshire Blog and its affiliates.

"I Didn't Read the Bill!" Confesses Louise Slaughter, Powerful House Democrat

2009-11-08T01:23:00.174-05:00

At post-victory celebration, a committee chair's revealing slip-of-the-tongue.

by Glenn M. Heller
Sunday, November 8, 2009, 3:22 A.M.
(Reported here as witnessed first-person by the author just hours ago.)

To uproarious laughter and gleeful applause, Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY, powerful chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, candidly admitted to a packed, post-victory, closed-door gathering of fellow Democrats that, in fact, she had not actually read H.R. 3962, the 1990-page health care bill her party managed to pass tonight in a close vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY, powerful House Rules Committee Chairwoman.
Photo Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America.
Photo taken August 11, 2009.

Ms. Slaughter, who represents New York's 28th Congressional District and voted 'Aye' on the legislation, made her startling admission in the middle of a lengthy toast she was giving to those lucky enough to be packed wall-to-wall partying inside H-208, the House Ways and Means Committee conference room, located just yards off the House floor where less than an hour earlier the hard-fought bill had passed 220-215.

On the room's long conference table was arrayed food and punch for the post-victory revelers, and Ms. Slaughter raised her cup in a crowd-pleasing speech as she savored her party's victory.

In the middle of that oration, and comfortable amongst those she knew to be friends, she paused for just an instant, almost as if she knew she shouldn't say that which she was about to say, and then blurted out, "I confess, I didn't read the bill!"

The crowd roared, a gleeful appreciation by cohorts at the apparent frankness of the respected chairlady's remark.

Other Democrat committee chairs present during Ms. Slaughter's eye-opening revelation included Charles B. Rangel, D-NY, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Henry A. Waxman, D-CA, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Both men, especially Mr. Rangel, appeared bowled-over with laughter at Ms. Slaughter's sudden and unexpected declaration.

Democrats are hailing the legislation calling it landmark, while Republicans are warning that if signed into law, the Affordable Health Care for America Act could become the most expensive single piece of legislation in U.S. history, and could result in dramatic increases in the authority and power of the federal government to intrude into private lives and personal health care decisions. <<<

(Backstory: The author was present in the House Gallery during the vote on H.R. 3962 and stayed afterwards to watch as the House completed 'housekeeping' matters and the session was finally gaveled to a close by James Moran (D-VA). Exiting the House Gallery, and on a whim, author headed down the main staircase to the second floor where Congressmen were exiting the House chamber. Then, following others to the main corridor and then through a door, author entered a large ante-room. It was here that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and various House managers were already in the midst of a crowded post-vote press conference with TV cameras, soundmen and print reporters. Upon completion of that self-congratulatory photo-op, some of the House managers stayed behind for one-on-one interviews, including Henry Waxman (D-CA). Author stuck around to observe. When his one-on-ones finally wound up, Mr. Waxman along with his middle-aged female aide headed for the exit. Author followed just steps behind. Mr. Waxman and the aide went back through the door to the main corridor, turned left and headed straight for H-208, the door to the House Ways and Means Committee conference room. Even from down the hall one could hear loud sounds and raucus laughter emanating from this room. Plainly, a joyous gathering was in progress within. Mr. Waxman opened the door just enough to squeeze in, followed by his aide, followed closely by the 'gate-crashing' author. [Though Capitol Police were stationed throughout the corrider, who questions what seems to be a cohesive little group walking into a conference room, especially when the one in the lead is a House committee chairman?] Just to get into that packed room, though, required the three of us to shoehorn our way forward so the heavy door could close behind. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) was already addressing the crowd with her hand raised in a toast when the three of 'us' arrived. Author's location when witnessing Ms. Slaughter's 'confession' was not six feet away from where she was standing. Unfortunately, not long thereafter, author was 'discovered' and questioned by an unidentified middle-aged female staffer, at which point author was quietly asked to leave the gathering. Author exited the conference room back into the main corridor, where he was quickly 'carded' by Capitol Police who requested ID, since according to the officers, after the House gavel falls on a late-night session, the Capitol Building officially closes to the public 30 minutes later [Who knew?], and it was now long past that deadline. Anyway, while waiting there in the corridor for Capitol Police to complete the process of checking ID, author, who was still standing in front of the committee room door, had opportunity to meet and shake hands with Members of Congress as they individually exited the victory celebration, including Ms. Slaughter and Charles Rangel (D-NY). What a hoot!)

The above article © Copyright 2009 Glenn M. Heller

Is Barack Hussein Obama too psychologically flawed to be President?

2008-10-19T03:05:00.034-04:00

by G.M. Heller
Published: Sunday, October 19, 2008

Candidate Barack Hussein Obama's performance the other afternoon at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York was revealing.
It showed just how close to the surface resides Mr. Obama's apparently highly fragile ego.
>Photo: © 2008 FreakingNews.com
The candidate seems obsessed with the lone news organization unwilling to sing his tune.
His references to Fox News and Rupert Murdoch at the dinner -- and also in his stump speeches of late -- are just getting plain weird.
Further, his campaign's smear attacks on a $40,000-a-year Toledo, Ohio journeyman plumber (in the wake of Obama's own revealing slip of the tongue exposing his real agenda for raising taxes to "spread the wealth") show this candidate to be a humorless, angry, megalomaniacal soul determined to have everyone love him -- at all costs.
(And for those who don't, better watch out!)
Is there any real doubt that the fact that Obama was abandoned -- first by his irresponsible father, then by his stepfather, and finally by his equally irresponsible mother -- had real and searing effects on the young Obama, and that now as an adult, he is showing evidence of real psychological flaws, and apparently not small ones.
Must America pay for this emotional cripple's therapy by handing over to him its Oval Office -- especially when we really don't know for certain just who this fellow is?
What little does get revealed is not pretty.

Barack H. Obama: Democrats' Lament

2008-04-21T05:07:00.019-04:00

Looks like the partisan Liberal hack who writes The Berkshire Eagle editorials cannot handle the fact that his candidate Barack (not supposed to say Hussein) Obama is finally facing some long-overdue, tough questioning.
Sorry Eagleboy, but the reverend minister from whom this next possible president seeks comfort and counsel for twenty years IS America's business, especially when that holier-than-thou preaches hate.
Also of import is the symbolic decision by Mr. Obama not to display the American flag in his lapel.
A small thing, maybe, but the fact that BHO is at odds to do it says a lot more about the man behind the mask than any of his hope-hope-hooray hoopla.
And do I need to address the fellow's -- and his wife's -- public expressions of outright elitism?
Face it, Eagleboy, your guy is on the skids.
Looks like too many Democrats put too many eggs too soon in one basketcase.

KRIPALU: Not-For-Whose-Profit?

2008-04-07T15:18:00.138-04:00

Milking A Sacred Cash Cow.

If you are of the belief (as I am after reviewing the financial shenanigans at WAMC Northeast Public Radio and at The Mount) that one of the easiest ways nowadays to become a millionaire (or at least live like one) is to run a tax-exempt organization, then read on:

The Berkshire Eagle reported Sunday that Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health (officially known as Kripalu Yoga Fellowship) has received its first PILOT "tax" bill -- for $61,222 -- from the town of Stockbridge.

Photo: Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health in Stockbridge, Mass.

The yoga retreat cum resort spa (2006 gross revenues $23.3 million) has its headquarters in Stockbridge and PILOT is meant as a 'payment in lieu of taxes'.

"But", according to The Eagle, "as yet, it is unclear whether the nonprofit organization will be liable for the real estate taxes" because the organization is presently classified as 'tax-exempt' by IRS.

It might be helpful to Stockbridge's case to review whether Kripalu is indeed 'not-for-profit' (and thus deserved of tax-exempt status), or just another money-making enterprise masquerading as a 501c3 for the many local, state and federal benefits such status confers.

Being tax-exempt gives Kripalu a definite edge over its commercial resort spa competitors like Canyon Ranch which, as a for-profit entity, has federal and state tax obligations, and is required, for example, to pay real estate and personal property taxes to the town of Lenox.

Kripalu's CEO, Patton Garrett Sarley, known also by his Sanskrit name, Dinabandhu, which means 'friend of the poor and the helpless', sure ought to be.

Photos:
Patton Garrett Sarley (aka Dinabandhu), Kripalu's CEO;
Mary Sarley (aka Ila), Kripalu's president.

That's because for 2006, Mr. Sarley was paid nearly $232,000, according to the organization's latest available IRS Form 990.
SEE: PDF pgs. 33, 34, & 35.

Mr. Sarley's wife, Mary, is known around the retreat as Ila.

She is president of the organization, the same one for which her husband is CEO.

Kripalu paid her more than $186,000, thus making the couple's total 2006 compensation from the yoga center just over $418,000.

This is nearly eleven times the median household income for Berkshire County (MHI here is $39,047).

Richard Faulds (also known as Shobhan) is chairman of the board of trustees and is Kripalu's legal counsel.

His pay in 2006 surpassed $110,000.

Richard Faulds (aka Shobhan), Kripalu's board chairman and legal counsel.

While Mr. and Mrs. Sarley each averaged 40 hours per week in 2006, Kripalu reported to IRS that Mr. Faulds worked an average of just one hour per week.

It does not appear to be a typo, either.

At that rate, Mr. Faulds was making $2,200 per hour.
SEE: PDF pgs. 33, 34, & 35.

This isn't the first time that Kripalu, and the company's practices have been the object of public scrutiny.

According to The Boston Globe, "Dinabandhu Garrett Sarley and his wife, Ila Sarley, were among the original followers of Kripalu founder Amrit Desai, who left in the wake of a scandal in 1995. Indeed, Dinabandhu Sarley held chief operating officer responsibilities at Kripalu when the ashram's problems emerged. (Desai, who was married, encouraged his followers to practice celibacy. He later was revealed to have had sexual relationships with several of his female adherents and was forced to leave the community. The events nearly destroyed Kripalu, prompting its evolution from a devotion-based ashram to a more secular educational institution.)"

By the way, Kripalu reported zero taxable fringe benefits paid to the above executives in 2006.

Credit for this article goes to "Ombudsman" whose timely suggestion was the impetus for its publication.

WAMC to buy 'The Mount' in $8.7 million deal.

2008-04-01T02:48:00.037-04:00

NPR affiliate to take over Wharton mortgage debt

Albany, New York -- WAMC Northeast Public Radio announced today it will buy The Mount in an $8.7 million transaction intended to take over the debt of the financially-ailing literary arts institution and keep the famous estate and library collection intact.

The tax-exempt NPR affiliate announced it would be purchasing all debt obligations of Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. from local banks and individuals currently holding notes on the property, and that the public radio station will be taking possession as soon as the paperwork is signed.

The former Edith Wharton estate, WAMC's latest purchase to be used as the NPR affiliate's Lenox branch office, and as summer residence for its CEO Alan Chartock.-- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

WAMC, in a press release, says it intends to refit the estate, change its name to the Alan S. Chartock Museum of Northeast Public Radio Arts, Sciences and First Amendments, in honor of the station's longtime CEO, and set aside the entire third floor wing of Edith Wharton's former dwelling for use by Mr. Chartock as a Lenox branch office and summer residence.

WAMC says the new acquisition, with its manicured lawns and gardens, will offer Mr. Chartock the peace, quiet, open space, and sweeping vistas necessary to enable its CEO, like Edith Wharton before him, to compose the riveting prose and illuminating commentary that readers and listeners have come to expect from the well-known political commentator and former SUNY professor.

WAMC's Chartock said, "The acquisition of Edith Wharton's home along with the estate's extensive acreage and out buildings will be a fitting memorial to public radio and to WAMC's lifelong commitment to promoting liberalism, democratic values, social justice, and a more civil society."

WAMC's long-time CPA, William M. Kahn, managing director with UHY LLP in Albany, gives the deal thumbs up, saying, "Yeah, I guess. Who wants to spend summers on Central Avenue?"

Mr. Chartock also noted, "WAMC is asking listeners to give what they can so this fragile experiment in public radio will never go out and the fire of our commitment so WAMC listeners can hear different points of view will be the candle that lights the voices that will forever hear truth in our hearts and not die and not be afraid to take on the Bushies and their minions the Cheneys and attacking our Constitutional rights, our First Amendment, and the good Lord willing will make WAMC's newest goal a reality."

Mr. Chartock said that tax-deductible contributions should be made to the 'WAMC Museum Fund' in care of the station.

The Mount's manicured lawns and gardens will offer Mr. Chartock the peace, quiet, open space, and sweeping vistas necessary to enable him to compose prose and commentary.-- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

A special four-week, on-air fund drive to raise the $8.7 million is set for the beginning of the summer tourist season and will culminate with 'WAMC Day' at Tanglewood, an all-day affair which will include a gala black-tie, invitation-only dinner followed by a concert in the Koussevitzky Music Shed and fireworks.

Former New York State Democratic Governors Mario M. Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer will make special guest appearances at WAMC Day at Tanglewood.

The concert will feature performances by James Taylor, Pete Seeger, Jay Unger and Molly Mason, with special guest appearances by 'Prairie Home Companion' host Garrison Keillor, and two former New York State Democratic Governors, Mario M. Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer. <<<<<

Edith Wharton's Library: A Benefactor's Largess Misappropriated?

2008-03-19T05:01:00.059-04:00

$744,000 Meant for Books Was Used To Cover 'Operating Deficit' -- Private Lender Still Waiting to Be Paid.

It has been reported that Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. (EWRI) agreed to purchase Ms. Wharton's personal library for $2.6 million from British book collector George Ramsden, and that facilitating this purchase were part-time Stockbridge residents Robert G. and Elisabeth Wilmers, who generously provided financing -- a bridge loan -- to allow the transaction to occur.

Unfortunately, as with much else regarding the murky finances at The Mount, smoke and mirrors abound in this Wharton-inspired tale, and things are not as they appear.

For example, right now it is unclear precisely what the specific terms were of the December, 2005 purchase agreement with Mr. Ramsden because The Mount has so far refused to make the agreement public.

Yet, one thing is known for sure, the $2.5 million loan that allowed the transaction to take place has yet to be repaid.

Mr. Wilmers, a former CEO of M&T Bank from Buffalo, New York, with his wife, loaned the money to EWRI on November 30th, 2005, just two weeks before The Mount's CEO, Stephanie Copeland, flew to England and, with great fanfare (a New York Times correspondent was present), signed the purchase agreement with Mr. Ramsden that would bring the leather-bound collection back to the United States.

Photo: First Lady Laura Bush Visits The Mount, April 24, 2006. From left: Stephanie Copeland, president & ceo, Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc.; Robert and Elisabeth Wilmers, benefactors; Lord Christopher Tugendhat, British investment banker (and future trustee); First Lady Laura Bush; and George Ramsden, book collector and seller. -- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

The Berkshire Eagle reported that Mr. Wilmers "was to be paid in full by Dec. 31, 2007. He has not been paid; he declined a request for an interview this week."

Not only did EWRI fail to repay the Wilmers, but $744,700 of the loan they arranged appears never to have been used for the purpose the Wilmers specifically intended, that being to buy the Wharton collection and bring it back to its original home in Lenox.

It is clear from the inception that the bank-savvy Wilmer's notion of providing a bridge loan as a means to procure the historic library did not also encompass using the proceeds to pay the organization's monthly obligations or various other debts.

The evidence for this comes from one of The Mount's newest trustees, Lord Christopher Tugendhat, a former British politician who acknowledges being the 'facilitator' who brought the sides back together when the book deal appeared to be going nowhere.

Photo: Lord Christopher Tugendhat, British investment banker (and future trustee), April 24, 2006. -- Credit: Kevin Sprague, Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

An investment banker and former Conservative Member of the British Parliament, Lord Tugendhat, in September 2006, became an EWRI trustee, one of three newly appointed to the board.

Shortly thereafter, for the The Mount's Winter 2007 Annual News & Financial Report, the life peer penned an article aptly entitled "Christopher Tugendhat recounts his pivotal role in the library acquisition." [p.8]

In the following excerpt, the British businessman describes Robert Wilmers' intentions regarding the library acquisition:
"It was a few months after this that Robert Wilmers re-entered the scene with a crucial intervention. He had kept in touch with what was going on and decided that decisive action was required. Would a deal be possible, he asked, if the financial means were forthcoming, or were there other factors in the way? I told Stephanie [Copeland] I was sure a deal was attainable since I believed we had won George's [Ramsden] confidence on all the non-financial issues. With the backing of Robert and Elisabeth [Wilmers] a revised proposition was then produced designed to enable the hands not just to touch but to shake. So again I took the train to York [England], again I was let loose among the books and again Jane [Ramsden] prepared a delicious lunch. This time though the denouement was very different. When I told George what The Mount had in mind, he immediately indicated that so long as the lawyers and accountants were happy a deal would be forthcoming. And so it was."

From Lord Tugendhat's description, it is plain that Robert Wilmers' intention was to create the 'financial means' and make them 'forthcoming', all to make possible a 'deal' that would result in The Mount's acquisition of the collection.

There is not the slightest implication in Lord Tugendhat's memoir that Mr. Wilmers was intending any of his bridge loan to finance The Mount's operations or to cover any debt.

According to an individual familiar with EWRI, the original purchase agreement stipulated a price of £1,500,000 (British pounds or GBP) to be paid the bookseller in exchange for his collection of Ms. Wharton's extensive library of colorful leather volumes.

At the currency conversion rate in effect that day, December 12th, one British pound (GBP) was equal to 1.75530 US Dollars (USD), and meant the collection was valued at over $2.63 million USD.

Rather than paying Mr. Ramsden the entire sum though, EWRI instead paid him £1,000,000 at the closing and signed a note committing itself to pay the remaining £500,000 in ten annual installments of £50,000.

In American dollars, that meant a purchase price of $2,632,950 with Mr. Ramsden receiving upfront $1,755,300 USD (£1,000,000 x 1.75530), with the 10-year note then worth $877,650 at $87,765 per installment.

(With currency exchange now strongly favoring the British pound, the cost in American dollars today to pay off that note will be considerably higher.)

John Keegan, CPA, EWRI's long-time auditor and tax preparer, of the Pittsfield firm, Lombardi, Clairmont & Keegan, claims that the £500,000 note to Mr. Ramsden is interest-free.

When it was pointed out that EWRI's FY2007 IRS Form 990 [p.24] shows the note being carried on The Mount's books at 8% [p.25], with the total number of British pounds owed Mr. Ramsden seemingly being compounded annually, Mr. Keegan said that standard bookkeeping practice requires notating and calculating interest, whether or not interest is actually being charged.

At close of FY 2007, EWRI's Form 990 shows the amount owed Mr. Ramsden had risen to £607,254 [p.24].

Mr. Ramsden is supposed to receive his final installment by Dec. 12, 2015, but according to The Berkshire Eagle: "The Mount paid him in 2006, but Ramsden did not receive his second payment last year."

Meanwhile, the unsecured $2,500,000 bridge loan from Mr. Wilmers, the one used to pay Mr. Ramsden his initial $1.75 million, is being carried at 4.04%, according to the Form 990, and is 'Due on demand' [p.25].

After subtracting the $1.75 million paid Mr. Ramsden from the $2.5 million loaned EWRI by Mr. Wilmers, there still remains exactly $744,700 the dispersal of which has yet to have had a public accounting or substantive explanation by EWRI officials.

While for certain there were expenses related to packing, securing and insuring the valuable library, as well as shipping all that paper and leather 3,500 miles to Lenox, Massachusetts from Settrington, England, none of that cost would account for the bulk of the 'missing' money.

Susan Wissler, vice president of The Mount, in an interview with The Berkshire Eagle, said "the balance went to cover some operating deficit."

Not much of an answer, nor very detailed, from the person whose signature actually graces the Form 990 return to IRS.

So the question remains, just what did happen to all that money? <<<<<

Related Articles:
Edith Wharton Restoration: Living the 'Gilded' Life While Wallowing in Massive Debt.
Edith Wharton to IRS: "Mount This!" -- Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.

Edith Wharton Restoration: Living the 'Gilded' Life While Wallowing in Massive Debt.

2008-03-13T04:57:00.142-04:00

The Mount's fiscal woes are not going to be resolved anytime soon, and certainly not until the organization can get a handle on its incredibly profligate spending habits.

It also needs to start complying with basic IRS reporting requirements governing tax-exempts.

For example, during The Mount's slow season, CEO Stephanie Copeland enjoys full and free use of a furnished luxury studio apartment in a mid-town Manhattan high-rise.

This contributes to the current fiscal drain on the organization at the rate of "about $2,439 per month", according to The Berkshire Eagle.

In summer, when Ms. Copeland spends most of her time in the Berkshires, the unit is sublet.

Photo: Stephanie Copeland, President and CEO , Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. at The Mount in 2003. -- Credit: Lesley Ann Beck for Berkshires Week.

A source familiar with the organization claims Ms. Copeland is fund-raising in the city and alleges that her efforts there bring in 70% of the organization's donations.

Yet, The Mount subsidizes Ms. Copeland's personal use of this dwelling despite the organization's years of withering cash flow and financial hardship that recently culminated in it missing its February mortgage payment to Berkshire Bank (two separate loans actually, one at an interest rate of 7.0%, the other at a whopping 8.75%, both collateralized by real estate [p.25]).

With The Mount unable to pull in sufficient operating capital for so many years now, it would appear that Ms. Copeland's 'fund-raising' efforts in Manhattan do not warrant keeping the expensive outpost that doubles as her pied-à-terre in the City.

(And with the CEO in New York all the time, just who is reaching out to the hearts and wallets of Boston's arts and social glitterati?)

Further, The Mount sent its CEO and at least one other official on overseas 'tours' last year, all in the name of fund-raising, of course, but at a time when the organization was just months away from insolvency, if not already totally broke.

The first, in late June, a 12-day cruise to the Mediterranean, which according to The Mount's Winter 2007 Annual News & Financial Report [p.13], included accommodations "aboard a luxurious 114-guest yacht to retrace Wharton's 1888 journey through this ancient sea", plying the waves on the Corinthian II and traveling "in elegant style worthy of the Gilded Age."
(Tour itinerary)

The 114-guest luxury yacht, Corinthian II. Stephanie Copeland, CEO of The Mount, cruised aboard while 'fund-raising' for the tax-exempt organization.

(Elegant indeed, it's worthwhile remembering that at the time Edith Wharton took this very same frill-filled, spare-no-expense journey, she was already well-to-do having been born into a wealthy family, and thus had the means to spend money as she desired. She was not taking from a publicly-supported charity to support her lifestyle.)

Ms. Copeland was aboard, of course, supposedly 'fund-raising' whilst visiting "Sicily and the Aegean, including stops in Palermo, Syracuse, Santorini, and Rhodes", and all this co-sponsored with the Alumnae Associations of four Ivy-League colleges.

Back in the Berkshires, with time out during the summer to take in the cool breezes off the back porch at The Mount, and having only just caught her breath from her breathless sea adventure, Ms. Copeland then embarked on her second Edith Wharton excursion of the year.

This one commenced in October and lasted for 13 days.

She was accompanied this time by another official with the organization, and continued her 'fund-raising', this time throughout Morocco on the coast of North Africa.
(Tour itinerary)

The two Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. executives apparently enjoyed "sumptuous lodging and fine dining", visiting "private homes, gardens, and palaces in the red and white cities of Rabat and Sale, medieval Fes, the Roman ruins of Volubilis, and Marrakech, and much more," according to the Annual Report.

A view of Rabat in Morocco. Stephanie Copeland, CEO of The Mount, accompanied by another organization official, visited the ancient city while 'fund-raising' for the 'not-for-profit'.

This jaunt, sun-bleach included, was "Sponsored by The Mount".

Perhaps the most revealing aspect to these executive vacations (working or not) is the insight they give into the managerial competence of Ms. Copeland, as well as to the individual herself.

She took not one, but two extended overseas jaunts at a time when her organization was metaphorically bleeding-to-death (which problem partly was due to her free-spending decisions as CEO).

Significant too, is that neither vacation was paid for by Ms. Copeland herself in spite of her $97,000 annual salary.

As mentioned above, The Mount co-sponsored the first, and entirely foot the bill for the second.

So at a time when fiscal austerity would have been the prudent course of action at Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc., with an overwhelming need for critical attention to be paid to the urgent task at hand of raising from as many as possible emergency sums to keep up with the organization's crushing debtload, Ms. Copeland was off retracing Edith Wharton's wanderlust.

Quite telling also was Ms. Copeland's seeming need to emulate Ms. Wharton's privileged 'life experience' by, of course, traveling first-class in sumptuous Gilded Age style. (Too bad Ms. Copeland didn't see fit also to emulate Ms. Wharton's habit of paying her own way.)

Wouldn't Ms. Copeland's fund-raising expertise and valuable time have been better utilized rustling up donors from amongst her society contacts in New York and Easthampton?

And if help weren't available there, what would've been wrong with casting for life lines amongst the swells on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Chestnut Hill, Provincetown, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket (all located, dare one be reminded, in The Mount's home state)?

Failing that, there are the literary-atuned in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C..

Ms. Copeland's time and the organization's dwindling resources would surely have been better spent reaching out within the wealthiest country on Earth, rather than sightseeing in the Mediterranean and in Moroccan shopping bazaars.

To make matters worse, and for reasons as yet unexplained by John Keegan, CPA, the organization's long-time auditor and tax preparer, of the Pittsfield firm, Lombardi, Clairmont & Keegan, The Mount has failed to report its CEO's (and other key employees') various 'perks' anywhere on its annual IRS Form 990 return even though the CEO's use, for example, of the NYC digs appears to meet the IRS definition of a 'taxable fringe benefit' for which Ms. Copeland may be liable for federal income tax (in which case the organization would also be responsible for handing over to IRS the applicable withholding tax).

There is also the small matter of the organization's $130,642 foreign currency transaction loss briefly noted on page 21 of the Fiscal 2007, Form 990.

What is the nature of this transaction, and just how does a literary arts institution/museum in western Massachusetts manage to sustain a foreign currency loss of any amount, let alone one of such magnitude?

Foreign currency transactions and the high risks associated with them are generally the province of billionaires like George Soros, and international goliaths the size of General Electric Company.

Until Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. stops operating like a rigged Las Vegas slot-machine calibrated to go off only when its CEO puts in her token, there's little reason to believe this organization is going to survive -- and large creditors like publicly-traded Berkshire Bank ought to take heed, and stop the shenanigans.

That or be prepared to write off a whopping loss. <<<<

Related articles:
Edith Wharton to IRS: 'Mount This!' -- Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.
TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS -- Failure to report CEO's taxable 'perks' could leave trustees liable.

Sorry, Eliot! It Wasn't My Fault!

2008-03-13T00:33:00.032-04:00

It was the cell phone!

We were talking (I have Sprint, Spitzer's got Verizon) and I was giving Eliot financial advice because he's been worried about his investments, and I thought I quite plainly said:
"Eliot, eschew risk in foreign exchange and CD's!"
Well, he thought I said: "Screw Kristen for a change in DC!"
Damn it! That's the last time I give anyone advice over a cell phone!

Democrat New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer

Ashley Alexandra Dupre aka "Kristen"

Who Dropped the Dime on Eliot Spitzer?

2008-03-11T19:22:00.004-04:00

In Re: Client #9

The Whole Thing Was A Set-Up!

Whatever you may think of Eliot Spitzer, it appears this whole investigation and prosecution was a 'set-up' from the very start -- meaning that Mr. Spitzer's enemies were looking to get him on anything they could.

(And they may or may not have had good cause depending upon what one thinks of the Democrat Governor's general performance since his swearing-in.)

The escort service bust and the telephone taps leading up to it were merely the vehicles by which Mr. Spitzer's political enemies got him.

(No doubt Mr. Spitzer gave his enemies the shovels with which to bury him by frequenting an escort service, but don't be misled into thinking that Spitzer just happened to get caught up in the bust of a prostitution ring. Spitzer was always the original target. The particular escort service he was using -- and whose principals ultimately got indicted -- merely got caught up in the cross-hairs of those in pursuit of this Governor.)

I say all this because if you carefully read the actual criminal complaint (all 55 mind-numbing pages of it), it emerges that the sections dealing with 'Client 9' (Spitzer) reveal far more lurid details than any of the sections dealing with any of the other 'clients'.

To me this says that the writers of the complaint wanted as much as possible to draw particular attention to the specific actions and words of that unnamed ninth client.

The real intent, of course, in all this became crystal clear when conveniently it was repeatedly publicized throughout the day's media frenzy just exactly which number client Mr. Spitzer happened to be.

It all seemed just too pat and staged.

Also, in a separate ABC News story by Brian Ross, he writes:
"The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI's Public Corruption Squad.'We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,' said one Justice Department official."

"(T)he thing with Spitzer" were his large cash withdrawals.

These are what led investigators to look into what Spitzer was doing with that cash, and ultimately to the activities at the escort service.

In addition, the complaint quotes 'Client 9' as expressing a need to visit an ATM cash machine to withdraw more money, this in order to pay his escort and her agency not just the requested balance due for the lady's services, but a substantial additional sum -- so that there would be a credit balance next time client Spitzer desired to engage the firm. (He'd used the agency in the past.)

This is the obvious indication, therefore, that Spitzer was using his local ATM to withdraw cash (thus sparing having to deal with the inquiring eyes -- and questioning thoughts -- of a bank teller).

(This escort agency's firm policy was to get a large deposit up-front -- at times 55% of the $1000 - $5000 per hour rates. This sum was requested to be deposited to a seemingly non-descript business account in cash, money order, wire transfer or American Express card -- no Mastercard or Visa welcomed here, thank you! In the case of Client 9, it appears the deposit was received via mail because, according to the complaint, "Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring" [Para.74].)

Sounds to me that at Spitzer's bank, the ATM supervisor (or head teller) may have noticed large cash withdrawals from the machines from certain accounts and decided to check out just to whom exactly those account(s) were listed -- not an unusual practice in this age when federal and bank officials are worried about terror groups sending large amounts of cash overseas to other terrorists.

So anyway, once it was determined by the bank that it was actually the Governor of New York who was withdrawing large sums of cash from his account(s), then the next obvious question is: Why?

Meaning: Why does a family man need $3,000 - $6,000 in walking-around money when he's likely got plenty of credit cards in addition to a state-provided limousine, chauffeur, and trooper contingent?

(Even Warren Buffett is known to carry only about 300 to 400 bucks in his wallet at any one time.)

Who is to say then that whomever it was (the ATM teller, the head teller, the bank manager, the bank president, the bank prez's Wall Street squash partner) with access to this tantalizing and invaluable tidbit of information -- that the arrogant, seemingly straight-arrow and invincible, mean-ass former prosecutor Governor of New York was periodically making large cash withdrawals for unknown purposes -- didn't direct this morsel to the table of the Governor's hungriest and most determined enemies?

From that point on the menu was set, and the goose cooked. <<<

Edith Wharton to IRS: "Mount This!"

2008-03-09T13:38:00.103-04:00

Failure to report 'fringe benefits' could leave CEO, Trustees at The Mount liable.

Stephanie Copeland, president and CEO at Edith Wharton Restoration, Inc. (EWRI) has been associated with The Mount for years and years.
She's even had the honor of receiving a Preserve America Presidential Award given her in 2005 by Pres. George W. Bush.
She resides in Stockbridge, and during the long Berkshire winters when business at the Lenox attraction is slow, Ms. Copeland continues her organization's fund-raising efforts 150 miles to the south in mid-town Manhattan, where she stays for extended periods.
Ms. Copeland's annual salary at $97,116 is considered respectable for Berkshire County (median income for a household here is $39,047).
Yet, according to the Manhattan telephone directory, it is not Ms. Copeland but rather EWRI to which a phone at 500 West 56th Street is listed.
Trouble is the 20-story building at that address, The Westport, billed as "One of the Premiere Luxury Rentals in New York City," is a residential apartment complex.
(The Westport's units include studios starting at $2,695 up to 2-bedrooms starting at $5,595 monthly.)

Photo: President George W. Bush and Laura Bush present the 2005 Preserve America Presidential Award to members of the Edith Wharton Restoration in the Oval Office Monday, May 2, 2005. They are, from left, Barbara de Marneffe, Co-Chairman, Board of Trustees of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stephanie Copeland, President and CEO, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. (White House photo by Eric Draper)

When a call was made today to The Westport, the fellow answering in the leasing department confirmed that the building is zoned residential, and that it is not an office building nor is it supposed to lease to commercial tenants.
Dialing EWRI's Manhattan number generates a series of different rings and ultimately forwards the caller to what sounds like a distant fax machine or computer.
First off, why is a not-for-profit organization maintaining an expensive NYC branch office when it's millions of dollars in the hole, and for years has had severe cash flow problems?
Next, since EWRI allegedly maintains this outpost for purposes of fund-raising, why are its offices in a residential building?
Finally, even were there a legitimate business rationale for The Mount to maintain an expensive perch so far from its Plunkett Street base, should the organization be subsidizing a space that doubles as overnight lodging (or longer-term accommodations) for a favored few?

Photo: Stephanie Copeland in front of The Mount, Lenox, Mass. -- Credit: Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times.

Under regulations governing tax-exempts, accommodations bought and paid for by charity organizations aren't free for the personal use of organization officials.
They're considered a taxable fringe benefit.
Those getting use of them owe extra federal income tax, and all information relevant to those transactions is supposed to be reported to IRS.
If EWRI is not reporting such transactions, or is reporting them inaccurately, then EWRI is running afoul of IRS regulations (in addition to its other current woes).
In looking at EWRI's most recent annual Form 990 filings, for fiscal 2007, 2006, and 2005, EWRI has reported to IRS that it paid zero dollars towards 'expense account and other allowances' going to EWRI's "Current officers, directors, trustees and key employees".
IRS defines 'expense account' as including any taxable fringe benefit or perquisite paid to the recipient.
Organization-provided lodging has a value and it's supposed to be calculated using what it would cost to obtain similar lodging at fair-market prices in an arm's-length transaction.
Using The Westport's published rental figures above as an arm's-length, fair-market guide, that would mean the benefit recipient owes federal income taxes on the value of a month's stay as if that recipient were getting paid by EWRI an extra $2,700 to $5,600 monthly.
Like I said, all this data is supposed to be -- is required to be -- reported annually to IRS on EWRI's Form 990, Part V-A.
Likewise, it is supposed to be duly noted in another section of Form 990, specifically in 'Schedule A, Part III' where the preparer is asked whether the organization furnished 'goods, services, or facilities' to 'trustees,' 'officers' or 'key employees'?
EWRI has annually reported 'No'.

The Westport at 500 West 56th Street offers luxury residential apartments in Mid-town Manhattan.

In addition to the issue of providing faulty information to IRS (which is concerned with the obvious possibility of tax evasion by those whose perks are not being reported), there is also the matter of 'self-dealing', the furnishing of services to a foundation trustee or manager without charge or at a price below fair market value.
In cases where IRS determines that self-dealing has occurred, the agency can level on the offender an additional five percent excise tax on each act of self-dealing.
As additional punishment for allowing it to happen, the agency can level an excess benefits excise tax on an organization's entire board.
It is quite clear that EWRI's board of trustees, its CEO, and its auditor need to explain what exactly is going on with EWRI's mid-town pied-à-terre. <<<<<

(Editor's Note: The author's familiarity with IRS regulations as they apply to tax-exempt organizations came about as the result of an extensive investigative report written in 2006 about the failure of another Berkshire 'not-for-profit', WAMC Northeast Public Radio, to report to IRS the taxable fringe benefits and perks paid to its CEO over the course of twenty-plus years. See: "TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS".)

William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)

2008-02-28T07:03:00.053-05:00

Photos taken at National Review's 50th anniversary celebration held October 6th, 2005 at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.
All photos in this layout © Copyright 2005 Glenn M. Heller

William F. Buckley, Jr. seated with U.S. Senator and Mrs. Joseph Lieberman, and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Buckley heading for the podium.

Buckley greeting (and attempting to calm) a standing ovation.

William F. Buckley, Jr. addressing the assemblage amongst the massive pillars at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC.

Buckley at the podium.

Buckley greeting well-wishers.

Buckley signing autographs.

Trashing Bill O'Reilly -- Professional Jealousy or Sanctimonious Drivel? ---- The Berkshire Eagle Dumps on the King of Fox News!

2008-01-06T12:54:00.000-05:00

Top: Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor.
Middle: Milton Bass, Berkshire Eagle columnist, on a trip in Switzerland, a few years ago.
Bottom: Clarence Fanto, Berkshire Eagle columnist and former editor.

What is it with The Berkshire Eagle's columnists Milton Bass and Clarence Fanto?
They both feel the need to rant about Bill O'Reilly and anyone else affiliated with Fox News, traditionalism, or political Conservatism.
Bass ought to stick with a subject he knows something about: music -- especially jazz.
Given Bass's and Fanto's predisposition for dismal, too often factually-challenged, quasi-Socialist commentary, Bass's review today (and Fanto's of 12/28) will likely not disappoint their hundreds of loyal Berkshire fans.
(Both columns are reproduced below in their entirety due to The Eagle's inexplicable habit of mysteriously deleting articles from its own Web archives.)
According to Fanto, he and O'Reilly even shared proximity at CBS News in the early 1980's at an early stage in both their careers.
So how has it come to pass that competing against the best journalists the other networks have to offer, O'Reilly has succeeded in becoming one of the nation's pre-eminent broadcasters -- watched, listened to, and read (even admired) by millions?
The O'Reilly Factor beats ... no, correct that ... destroys its competition -- at MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN -- nightly in the Nielsen ratings war.
Whereas, what is the career status of Mr. Bass and Mr. Fanto?
Best we can tell they're at the peak of their respective powers right now.
Their columns appear regularly (and seemingly only) in a New England daily best known for its former glory, but now mostly for struggling with withering circulation.
In addition, while Bass sanctimoniously rails against O'Reilly's personal ethics for an alleged involvement in a sexual harassment matter at the office, and Fanto targets what he calls O'Reilly's 'ultra-right demagoguery' and 'propaganda techniques', it cannot help but be noticed that neither columnist has ever uttered a peep when media people in The Eagle's own figurative front yard commit the same transgressions for which O'Reilly is being trashed.
The "political venom" referenced by Fanto is indeed "spewed daily" on-air right here in Berkshire County.
Local radio/TV superstar commentator and fellow Eagle columnist Alan Chartock has a reputation throughout seven states for ultra-left demagoguery and shrill propagandizing against the Bush Administration, American foreign policy, and the Republican Party.
(A Washington, D.C.-based NPR news producer who heard one of Chartock's rants while driving through upstate New York even remarked on it to a Baltimore reporter saying, “If you took a photo of me in the car my jaw would have been on the floor.")
While Bass focuses on O'Reilly's alleged treatment of a single co-worker, compare that to the repeated allegations against Chartock, whose absolute control at WAMC Northeast Public Radio for 27-years, has resulted in a lurid history of regrettable office behavior -- accusations he, of course, also denies.
(Of perhaps greater import, though -- the thing that should assumedly matter to holier-than-thou, finger-pointing types like Bass and Fanto: The retired SUNY professor apparently enjoys an almost total lack of fiscal accountability at his $7 million-a-year Albany-based public broadcasting charity cum cash machine. Fanto's stunning lack of curiosity on this latter point cannot be so easily excused. His most recent full-time position was as WAMC's news director, hired by Chartock. Fanto thus appears to be ethically-challenged, at least when it pays to look the other way.)
Bass also claims that "O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably" during the co-worker "ordeal", and that somehow this tells us "a great deal about the people who watch him."
This slap at O'Reilly's audience could just as easily be aimed at the WAMC audience who regularly listen to Chartock's loony rants.
Chartock is able to meet ever-higher fundraising goals at WAMC in spite of (or perhaps because of) the professor's ultra-left rhetoric and dominance of the station's talk format.
Is it not analogous to say that his audience's continued and increasing support for WAMC translates into telling us a great deal about those who would actually tune in regularly to this venomous propaganda?
Bass's and Fanto's disingenuous diatribes about O'Reilly make us wonder whether either has ever actually watched The Factor (rather than just regurgitated what Web sites like MediaMatters.org say), let alone been regular viewers.
It sure doesn't sound like it because their respective claims that the program puts forth lies and displays a bias are wholly without merit.
Sure, O'Reilly has his strongly-expressed personal points of view, but then so does the Bush/Cheney-hating Chartock, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, NBC's Chris Matthews, NPR's Daniel Schorr, PBS's Bill Moyers, and every other network 'commentator'.
Yet, O'Reilly also takes pains nightly on his program to interview those whose views directly contradict or contrast his own and/or those of his other guests.
He offers guests a world-class soapbox (The Factor has worldwide distribution) from which to clarify their respective positions without 'bloviating' (O'Reilly's favorite word).
In fact, one notable invitee who has steadfastly refused (without explanation) O'Reilly's invitation to appear on camera is none other than Great Barrington's own Selectboard co-chairman Ronald Dlugosz.
It was Dlugosz whose misguided political correctness regarding the town's pathetic Christmas lights display generated in the first place the present controversy for which The Eagle is now eviscerating The Factor host.
So it certainly can't be said that O'Reilly doesn't at least try to be fair.
(Versus The Eagle whose editors will either refuse to publish letters-to-the-editor with which they strongly disagree (like a shortened version of this column), or simply fail to enable their Web site's 'Comments' function on opinion pieces written by Bass, Fanto, Chartock and other dilettantes for whom the editors decide that readers' Internet responses will not be allowed.)
It's as though Bass and Fanto blame O'Reilly because some of those news makers upon whom he focuses his Factor spotlight, like Dlugosz, chicken out and refuse the opportunity to go on record to clarify and/or to defend the actions and/or positions they take.
What makes O'Reilly different -- and the real reason why Bass and Fanto (and by extension their enablers at The Eagle) are taking after him -- is because O'Reilly disdains the Liberal dogma that Bass and Fanto (and most so-called mainstream media) embrace.
The self-righteous Fanto stridently proclaims that "O'Reilly and his ilk ..... spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse."
Anybody familiar with O'Reilly on-air or in-print knows this is just plain hogwash (and if anything, putting forth such blatant untruths and misstatements of fact reveals gobs about Fanto's own warped left-leaning mindset).
The Factor program and O'Reilly himself are admired by regular viewers (whose loyalty has been hard won over the years) specifically because the show makes a determined effort to provide the Fairness and Balance about which parent Fox News is always bragging and has a lot riding.
This effort has paid off, in audience and advertising revenue, especially when one compares F&B on The Factor to the ofttimes utter lack of it in news programming cranked out nightly by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC (these last two being called by wags, respectively, the Clinton News Network and the New Clinton News Network).
Now in comparison, Bass's and Fanto's angry charges and uber-Left excoriation are regularly read and admired by a Berkshire audience of -- would it be exaggerating to say a few thousand?
(Of which many of these are best described as the paranoid, delusional political fringe -- the types who steadfastly maintain that Al Gore and John Kerry actually did win but were robbed of victory, and that controlled demolition is what brought down the WTC on 9/11.)
Kudos, Milton and Clarence!
Looking forward to your respective next big career moves.
Waiting especially for the two of you to make that long-awaited jump to cable TV.
I can just see it now: "The Bass and Fanto Factor" on Pittsfield Community Television.
At least it's likely to have a good jazz intro!
* * * * *
The Lively World
O'Reilly's sleazy résumé
By Milton Bass
Sunday, January 06
RICHMOND
There's no denying Bill O'Reilly has the tickets to be a news commentator on cable television. His education has been textbook with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from top colleges and universities, and his experience as a reporter and analyst all over the world has been outstanding.
He is also a genius at marketing. He knows what a certain segment of the public wants and he directs his viewpoints straight at them. He has established himself as an ultimate Catholic who single-handedly protects Christianity from the pagan hordes that have them completely surrounded, and he is also the Ultimate Patriot who smites the enemies of the United States wherever they might stand, sit or creep.
As a consequence he has the highest-rated "news" show on cable television and something over three million rabid listeners on the 400 radio stations that broadcast his program. He also writes a syndicated column and has had seven books published.
The problem with all this is that the man is obviously of low moral character and has hurt many worthwhile people with his righteous wrangling and wrongful purposes. The most recent victim has been the town of Great Barrington and its Selectmen. The excuse for the attack was that Great Barrington shut its (Christmas) (holiday) lights off at 10 p.m. in its bit to save electricity and help contain global warming. An O'Reilly producer came to a Selectmen's meeting with the program's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and then showed selected bits on the O'Reilly program. As a result of this, vicious e-mails, containing threats and vituperations of the basest sort, were sent by O'Reilly regulars to Great Barrington and environs. Peace on earth, good will to men.
The thing about O'Reilly (God's henchman), however, is that the history of the man has been lost because he keeps launching attacks that keep everybody so busy that they don't have time to bring up his résumé.
In 2004, which is just three years ago, a 33-year-old female producer on O'Reilly's TV show sued him for "sexual harassment." She brought the suit because O'Reilly had launched a suit against her claiming she was trying to shake him down for $60 million, which happened to be the amount grossed yearly by O'Reilly's show at that time.
The producer, Andrea Mackris, claimed that the then 55-year-old O'Reilly through personal conversations, a great many of them by telephone, made her feel "absolutely threatened" and forced her to earn her living in "a hostile work environment." She claimed in her lawsuit that O'Reilly continually insisted on describing sexual fantasies, masturbation and the use of vibrators, a practice in which he seemed to consider himself a master teacher. She said that he sometimes obviously "pleasured himself" while describing these things to her on the phone.
The details were so graphic that objective bystanders figured the young woman had taped some of these conversations after they had been going on for a while. She claimed that O'Reilly continually talked about how powerful he was and that he could assemble a horde of lawyers that would beat down anyone who opposed him in any legal matter. He also implied that Roger Ailes, the president of the Fox News Channel, had the power of extra-legal means to take care of any enemies that might take on O'Reilly.
Mackris hired a powerful legal team of her own and negotiations began. Word on the street was that parley broke off when the Mackris people felt that an offer of $2 million from O'Reilly was not enough to stop the matter from going to trial. However, before too much time elapsed a settlement was reached and all parties agreed to keep silent on how much money changed hands. O'Reilly was making about $9 million a year at the time and Fox was part of the settlement so there was much conjecture about how many million dollars the young woman received.
O'Reilly made a statement that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" and he ended what he considered a "brutal ordeal" without issuing an apology. The young lady subsequently purchased two condos in New York so her ordeal seemed to end comfortably. By the by, O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably during his "ordeal." Which tells you a great deal about the people who watch him and send out vicious e-mails in his behalf.
For those who might be interested in what Mackris claimed to have endured, the court file is available for view on the Internet.
So this is the man who has set himself up as the defender of the faith and the protector of his country. He calls himself an independent, but it is obvious where his political agenda lies. And lies and lies and lies.
Great Barrington has been besmirched in that it was forced to be part of his machinations. If you do not wish to watch O'Reilly in person, Stephen Colbert is more than a reasonable facsimile and quite funny in his impersonation of "the real thing."
Milton Bass is a regular Eagle contributor.
* * * * *
Bill O'Reilly: Voice of fear and ignorance
By Clarence Fanto
Friday, December 28
The recent dustup between blowhard broadcaster Bill O'Reilly and the Great Barrington Select Board over holiday lights is a wake-up call for many here in the Berkshires who are insulated from the hard-right political venom spewed daily over the nation's commercial radio airwaves as well as via cable or satellite on the Fox News Channel.
O'Reilly and his ilk, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, reach an estimated 30 million-plus Americans every day as they spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse.
Unfortunately, they far outnumber, in reach and influence, the liberal Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the temporarily-sidelined equal-opportunity political satirist Jon Stewart and his fellow Comedy Channel protégé Stephen Colbert (whose faux-right wing spoof of O'Reilly & Co. is so spot-on that some viewers don't see through it). They've been sorely missed, even though the Writers Guild of America strike they've honored by remaining off the air is a just cause. They'll be back, most likely without their writing staffs, on Jan. 7.
Ultra-right demagoguery has a long, dishonorable history in American broadcasting, dating back to the radio days of the late 1930s, when Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist ravings found an all-too-ready audience of sympathizers. Famously, he blamed the Great Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," the same group he claimed was responsible for the Russian Revolution.
Carried by hundreds of stations via CBS Radio (!) and, by some estimates, reaching as many as one-third of Americans, Coughlin's sympathetic expressions of support for Hitler and Mussolini finally were forced off the air in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, a precursor to U.S. involvement in World War II. But other, less extreme right-wing broadcasters like Boake Carter and Fulton Lewis, Jr. continued to attract huge audiences.
University of Indiana media researchers released a study of O'Reilly's commentaries earlier this year, finding that he consistently vilifies certain groups and presents others as victims as part of his skewed world view. The analysis found that the broadcaster used derogatory names every 6.8 seconds, on average, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his infamous, ironically titled "No Spin Zone."
"If one digs further into O'Reilly's rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil," said Maria Elizabeth Grabe, an associate professor of telecommunications on the Bloomington campus. "Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil." The researcher found that O'Reilly employs propaganda techniques eerily reminiscent of those 1930s radio hatemongers.
Utilizing propaganda tools familiar to students of World War II, the researchers identified O'Reilly's major patterns, all part of his effort to inject fear into the body politic. These include name-calling, "glittering generalities," card-stacking, the bandwagon effect (catering to the widespread desire to follow the crowd), and a pseudo-populist "plain folks" appeal to listeners in an effort to convince them that his ideas are "of the people." The Indiana University study team compared O'Reilly's approach to Father Coughlin's, even reaching the conclusion that the Fox newshound is a "heavier, less-nuanced user of propaganda devices" than Coughlin was.
Key findings pinpoint the use of fear in 52 percent of O'Reilly's commentaries — for example, he moaned that the U.S. was "slowly losing freedom and core values" at the time when "left-wing" media were "unfairly" criticizing the now-disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In the World According to O'Reilly. "politicians and media, particularly of the left-leaning persuasion, are in the company of illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists — never vulnerable to villainous forces and undeserving of empathy," the study concluded. "Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public."
Victimized by this vast left-wing conspiracy are most Americans, the U. S. military and the Bush administration, he argues as he casts himself as the chief protector of our fundamental freedoms. He's fond of inviting those he portrays as liberal East Coast elitists and "secular progressives" on his show so he can bully them into submission.
O'Reilly has every First Amendment right to air his views as he has evolved into the advocate-in-chief for neo-cons and disaffected fundamentalists. It's his style and his extremist techniques that are so offensive.
We knew O'Reilly slightly during our CBS News days in the early 1980s, when he was a promising investigative reporter and news correspondent who left the network in a huff when colleague Bob Schieffer used some film footage shot by network crews originally assigned to O'Reilly. Bloated egomania already was becoming evident.
With 10 months of the presidential campaign still ahead, O'Reilly will find plenty of fodder to support his hate-based cottage industry. The $10 million a year man is a self-described frequent visitor to the Berkshires; in the unlikely event that you encounter him on the streets of Great Barrington, be sure to give him a warm greeting.
Clarence Fanto is a regular Eagle contributor.

'War on Christmas' comes home - A Response to The Berkshire Eagle's editorial

2007-12-21T18:00:00.000-05:00

For once, FOR ONCE, The Berkshire Eagle actually puts a name to one of the out-of-touch Liberal effete who writes its Lefty psycho-babble editorials.
And brother, is this particular editorial distinctly out of touch!
The guys up there in The Eagle's nest just don't get it (and it's doubtful they ever will, at least not until circulation bottoms out at 57 -- the number who actually work for the paper -- and that time doesn't appear too far off).
Editorial writer Michael Scott Leonard refuses to admit that Bill O'Reilly is actually on to something, and that the Great Barrington Selectmen stepped in it bigtime with the cameras rolling for all to see on national television.
(The heck with the hundreds of cable operators across the USA that receive O'Reilly, even Time-Warner in North Adams transmits The O'Reilly Factor program and the entire county got to see close-up just how dumb the GB Selectmen made themselves look.)
Worse, each of these "representatives of the people of Great Barrington" has wimped out by saying no to O'Reilly's invitation to appear on The Factor to confront Ol' Bill himself head-on (not the mere minion sent to GB).
When given the opportunity to give GB's side of the story -- if there was one -- South County's 'Fabulous Five' blew it (again)!
If O'Reilly is such a blowhard, Selectboys and girl, why not just say it to his face on national television?
You could've really showed him what you're made of!
Instead, you've shown Berkshire County exactly what stuff that is.
Just for this, Great Barrington ought now to raise next year's Chrismas light budget to $1 million and flood the streets 24/7 with colorful, dancing lights -- and ask Al Gore to officiate at the big lighting ceremony.

'War on Christmas' comes home
By Michael Scott Leonard
Friday, December 21
STOCKBRIDGE
Who knew our sleepy, rural county would land the first volley in third annual War on Christmas — the Shot Heard Round the Blogosphere.
Bill O'Reilly officially fired back against the parasitic secularism of Great Barrington's heathen Selectmen, shining the national spotlight on the town's decision to conserve energy by dimming its Christmas lights at 10 p.m. with a three-minute segment on his Fox News program, "The O'Reilly Factor." The oasis of socialist heresy that is Taxachusetts must make an inviting target for a paragon of faith, small government and Middle American values like O'Reilly, but no one could have imagined he would deign to condescend to our modest region.
Never mind that Derek Gentile's article on the subject ran nearly a month ago; O'Reilly realized that Americans were too stuffed on Thanksgiving turkey at the time to muster the requisite outrage. Instead, his show waited to broach the subject.
He must know his public. The Eagle received antagonistic letters from all over the Deep Red South, including one from a Texan threatening to string extra Christmas lights to "carbon-offset" Great Barrington's green initiative.
All joking aside — and notwithstanding the size of the town — this is a moment that should have slipped well below the radar of the culture war. Thursday's Eagle editorial was right to draw a distinction between Great Barrington's "legitimate" environmental concerns and political correctness. Indeed, while calling Christmas lights "holiday lights" may be silly, banning them without just cause is a clear violation of the First Amendment. But the Selectmen voted to allow the lights, with a qualifying condition that rationally addressed a compelling concern.
The O'Reilly piece took pains to portray the Selectmen as overweening latté liberals, "rich elitists ... imposing their ideology on this small town." But dimming Christmas lights — whatever you call them — when no one is around to see them is not a political gesture; it is simply responsible.
Still, making that point doesn't require abstaining from the question O'Reilly's contrived, carpet-bagging hysteria raised. Yesterday's editorial concedes too much in implying that proactively secular statements should be held to a different standard than sensibly environmental gestures.
First, there is the small issue of ours being an avowedly — indeed, foundationally — secular country.
But just as importantly, it's not the fear of offending shrill liberals or the apocryphally domineering PC-police that has led many mainstream groups — civic, corporate and otherwise — to replace "Christmas" with more broadly applicable terms like "holiday" whenever reasonable. In fact, these substitutions are made in the quintessentially American — and Christian — spirit of ecumenical pluralism.
Are there times and places at which to replace "Christmas" with the generic "holiday" would be verbally cautious to the point of silliness? Sure. "Holiday lights" may qualify, or it may not. When you're wished "Happy Holidays" at Midnight Mass, maybe it's time to ring Bill O'Reilly. Altered lyrics to Bach's Liturgies should set off alarm bells.
Until we get there, however, O'Reilly is simply pandering to what the Philadelphia-based journalist Randy LoBasso (full disclosure: a friend of mine) once called "the phony outrage base" of America's right wing.
The phony outrage base consists of "pundits," "commentators" and other reactionary blowhards and bloviators seeking to distract Americans from the serious issues our country faces by appealing to the worst in people and stirring up irrational, often hateful passions. O'Reilly and his ilk don't find and exploit "wedge issues," as the conventional wisdom holds. They conjure them out of thin air.
In this case, the specter against which the phony outrage base hopes to mobilize public sentiment is the very spirit of pluralism embodied by an inclusive holiday greeting. Intolerant insularity — fear of "the other" — is the animating, if unspoken, principle underlying most of the far right's pet causes: xenophobic opposition to illegal immigration; our holy wars in the Middle East; hostility to the First Amendment rights of the secular or moderately religious; institutional homophobia; and the paranoid anti-intellectualism that has bred hostility toward all science, particularly environmentalism of the sort exhibited by the Great Barrington Selectmen.
Like other self-styled culture warriors of the right, O'Reilly relies on straw men to make his case. His claim — repeated by his guest, producer Jesse Watters — that the town Christmas lights draw sorely needed tourist dollars is not actually outlandish. It's just bogus — and all the more insidious for its plausibility.
Accoutrements like Christmas lights are, indeed, part of Great Barrington's quaint appeal. But, unlike Bill O'Reilly, I've been to Great Barrington. It's not Times Square: There is precious little shopping after 10 p.m., the hour at which the lights must be extinguished — a consideration the Selectmen obviously took into account when drafting the regulation. Anyone intent on shopping for trinkets or curios at 11 p.m. on a Tuesday won't be discouraged by the absence of conspicuous holiday cheer.
There may be more practical and direct ways of reducing energy consumption than enforcing a curfew on Christmas lights. But as long as the inconvenience is phony, it couldn't hurt.
Michael Scott Leonard is a Berkshire Eagle staff writer.

A Look at 'The New Puritanism': Gt. Barrington's 'War on Christmas'

2007-12-21T03:37:00.000-05:00

Photos - Top: Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor.
Middle and Bottom: Great Barrington's entire Christmas light display crossing Main Street and Railroad Street. Per order of the town Selectmen, curfew for the light show is 10 PM. (Middle photo by Will Whitehorn, The Berkshire Record newspaper)
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly!
The local newspapers, especially The Berkshire Eagle, hate it when an observant, media-connected outsider (meaning someone from outside Berkshire County) draws attention to (and pricks) the little bubble of fantasy that so many Berkshire locals choose to live in.
It's especially galling for it to happen before a national TV audience showcased on a program like The O'Reilly Factor.
One misconception I wish to correct. You claim that 'rich elitists from New York City' are moving up here and 'imposing their ideology on this small town.'
The fact is that most second-home owners (the bulk from New York and New Jersey) and 'snow-birds' (retirees who fly to Florida in Winter) refuse to register to vote here. Thus, they don't get to choose Selectmen or influence decision-making. (They just have the privilege of paying the lion's share of local property taxes.)
No, Bill, this isn't outsiders moving to the Berkshires and imposing a point of view.
What is happening can be called 'The New Puritanism'. It's home-grown. It's about blue Massachusetts, and it thrives right here in the heart of bluer Berkshire County.
It's political correctness, good intentions, and the Liberal Left's agenda run amok.
I look forward to seeing if any of the Selectmen will have the gonads to defend their latest bit of silliness done in the name of 'social consciousness'.
So far, though, it doesn't look as if any of these local paragons are going to appear on The Factor to defend or to debate ideology. Selectman co-chairman Ronald Dlugosz claims he is "not a fan of Fox". This is the man's rationale for not appearing on a national stage to defend his integrity or the logic of his Luddite point of view.
And so the man makes himself and the other Great Barrington town officials (and by geographical connection, the rest of Berkshire County) a laughing-stock across the country.

TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS.

2006-06-07T06:28:00.000-04:00

Failure to report CEO's taxable 'perks' could leave trustees liable.

Read the article:
http://www.wamc.net/taxcheat.html

Post your comments.

Topic: Do Cancer 'Clusters' exist in Pittsfield (or elsewhere in Berkshire County)?

2006-01-25T18:53:00.000-05:00

Please post addresses of residential locations in Pittsfield (or elsewhere in Berkshire County) where people have lived who came down with Cancers or other medical conditions that could have resulted from exposure to PCB's or other toxic chemicals in the local environment. Also, please feel free to post whatever additional information (medical or otherwise) you think would be helpful to this compilation.

The purpose in compiling this public list is to aid folks in determining if 'clusters' of disease and illness exist in Pittsfield (or elsewhere in Berkshire County), to help determine exactly where those clusters might be, and to discover the nature of the maladies existent within those clusters.

Thank-you for your help in this necessary project.

Your Feedback:

Topic: Incompetence in Pittsfield city government.

2005-07-12T15:12:00.000-04:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Taxes in Pittsfield

2005-07-11T11:01:00.000-04:00

Your feedback:

Topic: State Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.

2005-05-16T22:47:00.000-04:00

Your Feedback:

Topic: Southern Berkshire Regional School District -- Too fat a budget for too lean an education?

2005-05-14T15:11:00.000-04:00

Your Feedback:

Topic: Should Berkshire County DA David Capeless enforce State drug laws?

2005-04-12T03:56:00.000-04:00

From The Berkshire Eagle (Saturday, April 9, 2005):
"DA, citizens confer -- Prosecution of youths is topic"
Please read the above article, then post your feedback here:

Topic: President George W. Bush

2005-04-04T17:30:00.000-04:00

Your Feedback:

Topic: Political bias or balance at The Berkshire Eagle?

2005-04-03T04:56:00.002-04:00

Is The Berkshire Eagle politically biased or politically balanced in its editorial pages and news coverage?
If it is biased, what type of bias does it exhibit, how much of one, and does that bias infect news coverage as well as editorials?
What changes would you make at The Eagle in order to make it a better, more insightful newspaper?
Your Feedback:

Topic: U.S. Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

2005-03-30T20:00:00.000-05:00

Are Massachusetts residents better off with these two politicians in the U.S. Senate -- or is it time for some new blood?
Your Feedback:

Topic: Berkshire County's Politicians - - - - Local, State, and Federal.

2005-03-30T19:59:00.000-05:00

Who's good? Who's not? Who's hardworking? Who's smart?
Who's responsive to constituents? Who's a hack?
Who's way too Liberal? Who's way too Conservative?
Who's phony? Who's boring? Who's inept? Who's lackluster?
Who should go on to higher office? Who should be voted out?
Your Feedback:

Topic: Berkshire County's Speedtraps.

2005-03-30T19:56:00.000-05:00

Where are they?
Your feedback:

Topic: Berkshire County's Lawyers.

2005-03-30T19:55:00.000-05:00

Who's good? Who's not? Who's just so-so?
Who's the best? Who's incompetent?
Your Feedback:

Topic: Berkshire County's Judges.

2005-03-30T19:54:00.000-05:00

Too lenient? Too harsh? Fair? Unfair?
Your Feedback:

Topic: Berkshire County's Police.

2005-03-30T19:53:00.000-05:00

Who's good? Who's not? Who's fair? Who's nasty?
(Don't forget to name the City or Town where the officer works !)
Your Feedback:

Topic: Where the good music is tonight!

2005-03-25T12:29:00.001-05:00

Your feedback!

Topic: Where the good parties are tonight!

2005-03-25T12:29:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Sex and Dating in the Berkshires.

2005-03-25T12:28:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Berkshire Sports.

2005-03-25T12:27:00.002-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Wahconah Park

2005-03-25T12:27:00.001-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Pittsfield's City Council.

2005-03-25T12:26:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Pittsfield's Mayor

2005-03-25T12:25:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Northern Berkshire County.

2005-03-25T12:24:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Central Berkshire County.

2005-03-25T12:23:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Southern Berkshire County.

2005-03-25T12:22:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Politics -- National.

2005-03-25T12:21:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Politics -- State.

2005-03-25T12:20:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Politics -- Local.

2005-03-25T12:19:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Child molestation and abuse in Berkshire County.

2005-03-25T12:18:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: Violent street crime in The Berkshires.

2005-03-25T12:17:00.001-05:00

Your experiences:
Your feedback:

Topic: The Pittsfield drug scene.

2005-03-25T12:17:00.000-05:00

Just how extensive is it?
Your feedback:

Topic: Domestic violence in The Berkshires.

2005-03-25T12:16:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: GE Plastics -- Local management.

2005-03-25T12:15:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: GE Plastics -- Innovations.

2005-03-25T12:14:00.000-05:00

Your feedback:

Topic: General Electric Company -- Corporate.

2005-03-25T12:13:00.000-05:00

Your feedback: