A New Sheriff in the Blogosphere.

The Amherst Police Department, probably realizing the police report in the Amherst Bulletin is a must read, now have their own blog:

http://www.amherstpd.blogspot.com/

So if Umass students should get a tad exuberant over the upcoming World Series, perhaps we will see almost instant video on the site.

A few years back Amherst PD was savvy enough to replay video of a rambunctious Hobart Hoedown for Town Meeting members the week the Public Safety budget came up.

And a cruiser that sustained $10,000 in battle damage was prominently parked in front of the downtown station for about a week.

Perhaps if they had their interactive blog up and running six months ago Town Meeting would not have cut $180,000 from their budget thus sacrificing two officers. Northampton just added five and Umass added two.

Only in Amherst do we cut police while everybody else adds.

Making (effluent) Waves!

Ironically the following statement asking Town Meeting to “strongly urge” the Selectboard to rescind their 9/17 vote to give Umass free effluent was just mailed to all of Town Meeting by the Selectboard office. Taxpayers for Responsible Change had to provide 275 copies but they did the folding, stuffing and paid postage.

This same system calls for the petitioner to appear before the Selectboard to request they support the article in a recommendation to Town Meeting. Hmmm, I know of at least two Selectmen who might do just that.


Town Meeting Article #20
UMass Effluent Water Waiver
Taxpayers for Responsible Change

We are bringing this article before Town meeting because, in our opinion, the Selectboard acted hastily and didn’t have complete financial information when they voted 3-2 to grant the effluent waiver to UMass.

The UMass press release heralding the 5-year Strategic Agreement declared that the effluent water waiver only applied to consumption at the new power plant. Addendum 2 of the Strategic Agreement document, however, states the following in paragraph 4 “The town will allow the University to use, free of charge, effluent from the wastewater treatment plant”

Last year UMass, paid the Town of Amherst $38,000 for 57 million gallons used at the old steam plant for heating. According to UMass engineers the new power plant, which will also produce electricity, will consume 200,000 gallons per day or 73 million gallons annually for a cost of $49,000.

The new Integrated Science Building opening this Spring has a Cooling Tower Unit immediately adjacent to it with a rated effluent consumption of about 80% of the power plant, or about 58 million gallons for an additional cost of $39,000. Can the UMass athletic department be far behind in switching to effluent to water their fields?

Without the waiver, these two facilities would have paid $89,000 yearly to Amherst. These funds could then have been applied to the wastewater enterprise fund. Over a full 5-year period, that would have been an estimated $445,000 gain rather than the $200,000 loss quoted by a Selectboard member.


The new monies yearly total $140,000.
Effluent Waiver yearly total -$ 89,000
Sub-total $ 51,000
Demo five frat houses- lost property tax -$ 32,309
Net total $ 18,691

UMass students’ impact on police budget ?
UMass hotel tax loss - $ 50,000

Since this agreement has financial implications for sewer users, it is important for the Finance Committee and Town Meeting to deliberate and comment on this effluent waiver.

Please support article #20.

A view from the top

Although I have cycled up the road to the top of Skinner a couple hundred times yesterday was only my second time hiking it.

As Tony would say "the juggernaut of UMass."


A big rock halfway to the top.

Et tu, Brute?

Who would have thought a newspaper could take things so personally! Jokingly call them “crusty” gets them all twitchy? Or…maybe they’re a tad intimidated by the blogosphere.

Wednesday’s Gazette article on the sweetheart Umass effluent waiver deal making the Town Meeting warrant was a tad late--but perfect. Rookie Selectman Alisa Brewer, trying to sound tough, rejected the petition article (signed by 123 registered voters) as “only advisory” declaring the illustrious Select board can ignore Town Meeting on this controversial, costly matter.

And if nothing changed, that news article would be reprinted in the 10/19 Amherst Bulletin--probably on the Front Page.

But Wednesday evening I revealed to a Gazette editor (in what I thought was a private, off-the-record email) the State Ethics Commission decision had come down and I would post it the following day.

He immediately sicked a reporter on me even though I specifically said not to call my home because “I'm done for the day (whatever it is we call what this is I do). And if somebody from the Gazette calls tonight, my wife will kill us both (she's still pissed about the Chinese Charter school screw up by your previous Education reporter.)”

I took his call and chatted about the case but didn't reveal the verdict.

So Thursday morning at 9:55 I ring a close contact at the Gazette asking “Has the Bully gone to bed?” “Yes” he replies instantly …but after a pregnant pause asks, “Why?”

I explain my breaking story about to upload, BUT I would prefer it NOT to appear until next week “If they really, REALLY want it, then you better wait until 2:00 pm”, he said.

Of course, my sitemeter now reveals 18 folks hovering, awaiting the news I had hyped the night before. I figured worst-case scenario the Bulletin grabs the disclosure and puts it on the Front Page this week and my preferred news article gets bumped to Page Three.

So the Bully does grab it for Page One (below the fold however). And on Page Three? No, nothing about Town Meeting article #20 the effluent waiver controversy; instead a story about a last second “letter” peaceniks wanted the Select board to place on the Warrant signed by only 19 voters demanding the US not attack Iran.

Only in Amherst (Bulletin)!

Moon River...wider than a mile.

For this conservative watchdog, Monday October 15 started out gloomy. Crossing a busy highway while reading a much-anticipated letter (with bright red “confidential” emblazoned on the envelope) is never a good idea, even if the letter is brief.

After nearly becoming road kill and getting back to my office I get a call from a high-ranking elected official who informs me the Town Attorney has opined that the Select board can refuse to place the Umass effluent waiver on the upcoming Town Meeting and will force the Amherst Taxpayers for Responsible Change to get 200 signatures to “call” a Special Town Meeting rather than the 100 required to “insert” on an existing Town Meeting.

And I’m virtually certain that the letter from the Ethics Commission dated October 10 was also sent to Alisa Brewer, Rob Kusner and probably the town manager. So when we show up at the Select board meeting that night to fight for insertion on the current town meeting, I’m expecting many copies (color laser printed no less) on the back table for all to see.

Plus his Lordship, Select board Chair Gerry Weiss had already whined from his bully pulpit at the October 1 meeting that I had a “chilling effect” on the operation of his illustrious Select board.

The town official also mentions a conversation with an Amherst DPW manager who seems to remember the “strategic agreement” only calls for free effluent in the new powerplant--but not the 4 new buildings coming on line or use by the athletic department to irrigate recreation fields.

So there goes our argument about an exponential escalation of revenue loss to the Sewer Fund over the five years of the agreement, well above the annual $38,000 advertised by Selectman Kusner at the 9/17 meeting.

Fortunately that fact was easy to check: The Strategic Agreement that town and Umass officials signed states, “The Town will allow the University to use, free of charge, effluent from the wastewater treatment plant.” That's pretty clearly a Blank Check!

The Press Release, however, issued by the spinmeisters at Umass Office of News and Information states: “UMass will be allowed to use, free of charge, effluent from the town’s wastewater treatment plant for its co-generation power plant that is located nearby.” Hmmmm.

Arriving late to the Select board meeting (after teaching a Spin Class and putting my daughter to bed) I was pleased but puzzled to see nothing on the back table except that night’s agenda, in boring black and white.

And in a brief huddle with Stan Gawle out in the hall I learned the Select board screwed up with procedures and would have to allow our petition on this upcoming Town Meeting. Things were starting to look up.
####


So why would I not want the Ethics Commission rejection news alongside an article on the Town Meeting advisory to overturn the effluent sweetheart deal (in this weeks Amherst Bulletin for instance)?

Because I see them as two completely separate issues. Although either one can accomplish my mission of nixing this outrageous aspect of the deal with Umass.

And Wednesday’s Gazette article, standing alone, on the Town Meeting petition article was perfect! Select man Brewer shot herself in the foot (or perhaps a more vital spot) by suggesting the Select board will not give a damn what Town Meeting thinks about the $500,000 effluent giveaway. I, of course, forwarded that article to the Town Meeting Yahoo listserve.

Even today’s Gazette article, standing alone, on my Ethics case complaint dismissal is fine--because it keeps the issue in the public eye and a jury of my peers (normal working folk) would agree with me.

But why didn’t the Select board distribute their letter and crow about the Ethics complaint dismissal at their Monday meeting or issue public statements on Tuesday?

Well, yesterday just as I was about to publish my post covering the ethics matter my (pro bono) attorney came in to work out. I handed him the dispatch with the bright red “confidential” stamped on it and asked if that meant I could get in trouble for making it public? He thought for a moment and said “yes”.

“Good” I replied, and then clicked the publish button.

Justice is blind (not to mention sloppy)

You call that a “careful review”??? I know you folks handle 1,000 of these cases annually, but with a $1.5 million budget I would hope you could afford a calendar. Sure, both “subjects have filed appropriate disclosures” with the Town Clerk BUT they did it a WEEK LATE!

If you are going to absolve them of a conflict of interest (Mr. Kusner) or perceived conflict of interest (Ms. Brewer) based on a written disclosure, that’s fine. But if that is the SOLE reason, then you need to rethink things.

Because on the night of September 17 NEITHER of them complied--so anything they did THAT NIGHT concerning Umass should be rescinded.

The sweetheart effluent ($500,000-insider-giveaway) vote occurred on 9/17. I complained to your office on 9/20 and that complaint was widely circulated in the media. Mr. Kusner and Ms. Brewer filed their disclosure forms with the Town Clerk on 9/24. The numbers simply don’t add up.

Do over: your investigation and their 9/17 votes!

State Ethics Commission decides...

I'll tell you all about it this morning around 10-ish.