Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A stinky case of conflict: the pressure builds
So the crusty old Gazette is keeping up. And I love the placement of the two related stories in today’s edition (both above the fold): ‘Early Call on Amherst gap: $1.9M’ and my conflict of interest story: ‘Complaint Widens On Board Vote.’
Yeah, it all comes down to money. And nobody in bureaucracy (that runs on tax dollars) seems to give a damn about the taxpayers.
For instance, Town Officials insist on using the $140,000 figure as an annual net gain from the Umass “strategic partnership” completely ignoring the $37,000 in effluent water freebies they gave Umass in return.
Duh! So according to this taxpayers math, Umass is only paying us $100,000--on an annual impact of well over one million.
The first question reporter Scott Merzbach asked was why I filed another expanded complaint? Well...since I did bet the Town Manager on this blog on Saturday that the state would overturn the 3-2 Select board vote of 9/17, I am simply hedging my bet in the million-to-one chance the reticent Town Manager actually takes my bet.
Now there are three good reasons that vote needs to be redone: Ms. Brewer did not file her disclosure with the Town Clerk , Ms. Brewer made the motion that night and it was seconded BEFORE she whispered her public disclosure, and NO MATTER WHAT Professor Kusner should not vote PERIOD.
And if the Select board is not trying to cover its tracks and rewrite history then why did Ms. Brewer and Mr. Kusner sneak into the Town Clerk's office two days ago to file the disclosure form they should have filed on the 17’th? I use the word sneak because if they thought there was nothing wrong with that then why not call a press conference for the occasion? This blogger would certainly have covered it.