Witness vs Informant

Chancellor Subbaswamy and Stan Rosenberg Saturday UMass Homecoming Parade

Well I guess there goes the Pulitzer Prize for the venerable Boston Globe.

According to Northwestern District Attorney Dave Sullivan, drug OD victim Eric L. Sinacori, age 20, was not a UMass Police Department snitch, err, I mean informant.  He was a "witness" in a case against a drug dealer.

Kind of a BIG difference wouldn't you say? 

Although I'm going out on a journalistic limb at the moment by not corroborating that claim with another reliable source, but if you can't trust the District Attorney who can you trust?

And one of my other problems with the original Globe article was they seemed to think they could guarantee the young man's anonymity.  In this day and age.

I had a couple dozen Google referrals on Sunday to the story I did four months ago from folks doing a search for "acute heroin intoxication, Amherst".

Even the Gazette figured it out, since the Globe article published the date he died.  And the medical examiner has to file a death certificate in the municipality in which the person died (although it takes six months).

UMass PR folks at first seemed to be showing support to UMPD, but backed down last night and issued a statement from the Chancellor suspending the use of informants until a full review.  Today both the Boston Globe and Springfield Republican did editorials cheering that backpedaling.

I have no problem with requiring informants to get counseling if indeed they are addicted.  But to require parents be informed is simply a deal breaker.  You might as was well require UMPD to take out an ad in the Daily Collegian naming their informants.  

So yes, even though (apparently) Eric Sinacori was not a police informant, PR conscious UMass will probably go ahead and kill the program anyway.

And a year or two from now some kid will die of an OD that could have been prevented if his/her dealer was arrested via use of an informant. 

DA Dave Sullivan Statement Eric Sinacori

RAWG Rambles On

 Regional Agreement Working Group last night

After three years of meetings you would think the 12-member Regional Agreement Working Group, made up of three representatives from all four towns in the current Middle and High School Region (Amherst, Pelham, Leverett, and Shutesbury) could figure out a workable plan to simply extend what we already have now in grades 7-12, down to kindergarten level.

You would think.  But nooooooo.

The Regional Agreement Working Group wants to present a plan to the Regional School Committee sometime soon (actually more like a year ago).  Last night's meeting, however, was still not to be the last.

Next meeting, and hopefully last, is scheduled for October 15.

The current 9 member Regional School Committee (5 Amherst, 2 Pelham, one each from Leverett and Shutesbury) will have to support the proposed educational expansion by a two-thirds vote (not hard to get) and then all four towns will need a majority vote of their Town Meeting's in order to amend the Regional Agreement (very hard to get).

Tricky part is Shutesbury has already opted out of the expansion but wants to have the option to come in somewhere in the future.  And since their Town Meeting yes vote is mandatory for the entire project to go forward, the other three towns are trying to keep them somewhat happy. 

Last night the group voted to allow a town already in the 7-12 Region (say, Shutesbury for instance) to join somewhere in the future as long as any "negative impacts" are mitigated.  The words "by right" were stricken and replaced with "welcomed," but only if the negatives are overcome.

Thus the other three towns still have the option to say "no" if the negatives are not dealt with to their satisfaction.

1st Resolution passed unanimously previously, 2nd passed last night 8-0-1 (abstention)

By having this "on ramp" built in to the Regional Agreement now it simplifies the process in the future when only a two-thirds vote of the (new) Regional School Committee will be required to allow the town entry.

RAWG also approved other procedural concepts:   Elementary school closings (for the economic good of the Region) would require a "supermajority" of 8 votes, thus Amherst with its proposed 7 committee members cannot invoke their tyranny on a smaller town all by themselves.  Hiring a Superintendent to lead the district would also require 8 vote supermajority.

They unanimously supported the current status quo for amending the Regional Agreement:  two thirds vote of the Regional School Committee and then a positive vote in all four Town Meetings.

Since Amherst makes up 88% of the current Region the forced rational for "fair" representation with only a little over 50% of the slotted positions on the Committee reserved for Amherst, is the concept of "District Wide Election."



Voters in all four towns would vote for all members (even candidates from the other towns) of the new Regional School Committee.   Thus, theoretically, elected members will think more as a regional representatives rather than putting their town first.

Which of course flies in the face of human nature.

Amherst voters are already unhappy with the way the our expensive schools are running, so they are not going to be enthused about expanding the operation, especially when there seems to be no discernible cost benefit.

In fact it will probably increase the cost for Amherst, which already has a cost per student 30% over state average. 

The initial vote to make this happen could also prove problematic in a Keystone Cops sort of way.  Theoretically only two towns, say Amherst and Pelham, could vote to join the new Region.

But the other two (Leverett and Shutesbury) who don't join now (but still have the on-ramp option down the road) would still have elected members on the new Regional School Committee who could block any major decision requiring a supermajority.

Can you say "confusing"?

Not In My Town Center

Vince O'Connor, one man protest

One of the huge downsides of The Retreat student housing development in northeast Amherst no longer being on the table is it frees up time for NIMBYs to concentrate their wrath at other proposed developments.

Like "1 East Pleasant Street" for instance, a proposed 5-story mixed use development with 78 apartments and retail for up to four businesses on the ground floor.   All plunked down on a 35,000 square foot parcel on the northern end of Amherst town center, currently known as "The Carriage Shops".

Tonight's Planning Board meeting on the subject (probably not the only one) will no doubt be well attended by the usual suspects, with the usual complaint:  not the right place for the project.

Of course with some people -- all too many in Amherst -- there's never a right place for any project. 

Party House of the Weekend

241 Sunset Avenue

Yes, as some of you may know Sunset Avenue (at least the northern end of it) is contiguous with UMass Southwest area where all the freshmen are packed into one pretty dense cluster.

But it is still a neighborhood made up of single family homes, some of which actually house families.

Colin McGuire, age 20, stands before Judge Mulcahy

In Eastern Hampshire District Court on Monday the two arrested house dwellers, Derek Durouchel and Colin McGuire (both 20) thought they were going to simply get an easy plea deal for the charges of "Unlawful noise, Nuisance House, Receiving Stolen Property over $250, and Procuring Liquor to person under age 21."  But Judge Mulcahy warned them that one of the charges was a felony with potential jail time.

 Derek Durouchel, age 20

So they opted to hire a lawyer and come back to Court next month.

 Page 2 continues, "stopped both Durouchel and McGuire were placed under arrest."

MADD About You

 APD:  Police Department of the Month

Thank God for Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- the voice of moral outrage over a scourge that kills far too many innocent Americans every year.

And thank God for the men and women of the Amherst Police Department who somehow manage to find the time to get many of these potential killers off our roads.



In a noon ceremony today at the Amherst Police Station, Chief Scott Livingstone accepted the "Police Department of the month" award from MADD and cited the dedication to duty exhibited by his personnel in the face of stressful working conditions.

 Town Manager John Musante was on hand to express how proud he was of the department

The Fairness of Anonymity

Daily Hampshire Gazette version of Boston Globe story

I'm sorry but I find it odd the venerable Boston Globe went with this story (in a BIG way I might add) using anonymous sources -- the parents who endured that which no parent should endure.

Yes, I'm well aware of my exceedingly high percentage of commenters who wish to remain anonymous.  I struggle almost daily with publishing some of the nasty unfair criticism they hurl at people both in the public eye and sometimes not so much in the public eye.

In America one of our fundamental legal rights is to be able to face our accuser.  The Globe allowed grieving parents to criticize the UMass Police Chief and Assistant Chief while remaining cloaked in anonymity.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.  Let's protect the parents' privacy so as not to further hurt their already battered feelings, but simultaneously allow them to hurt others' feelings by suggesting they screwed up, causing a young man's death. Cops are human beings too.

The reason I published the young man's death certificate four months ago using the killer quote "acute heroin intoxication" is because I thought people should be aware that heroin is deadly serious business, even in our bucolic little town.

And why shouldn't police protect their sources the same way journalists do?

If I take a photo in town center of a low-level town employee inappropriately parking in a handicapped zone and they offer me details of high-level corruption in exchange for not publishing it, what the hell do you think I'm gonna do? 

The "age of majority" in Massachusetts is 18, so police were under no legal obligation to contact the parents.  And it's a bit of a leap to strongly suggest that parental intervention with a 20-year-old is guaranteed to make a life or death difference. 

Last week a UMass student killed himself in an off-campus location.  The District Attorney does not comment on private deaths in private homes, neither apparently does UMass (except they did issue a statement on the day the drug informant was found dead in his off campus apartment).

Fair enough.

But what if the Phoebe Prince case was covered up in such a typical manner?  Massachusetts would not now have stronger anti-bullying laws.

And what if none of the 100 grieving relatives of those who died in the horrific Station Nightclub fire wanted it mentioned that their loved one died in a bar?  We would not now have stronger legislation to protect the public from such a fire ever reoccurring. 

And where would gay rights and AIDS research be today if Rock Hudson had not come out in 1985 to acknowledge he had the dreaded disease?

The greater good often comes at the expense of the very few.  Or the one.

"Clearly Has Issues ... "

Attorney John W. Drake (left) Nikolai R James (right) appear before Judge Michael Mulcahy

Nikolai R. James, age 21 (who lives with his Grandfather in Leverett), appeared this afternoon in Eastern Hampshire District Court for the serious charges of Assault & Battery on two Amherst police officers, both of whom suffered broken fingers in the process.

The prosecution requested Judge Mulcahy revoke his bail from a previous case of domestic abuse he was charged with only last week in Orange District Court.   And on the two current counts brought by the Amherst Police Department, the Commonwealth requested bail of $2,500 per count or $5,000 total.

 Greenfield Recorder District Court Logs (9/29/14)

The prosecutor told the Judge Nikolai James first drew attention to himself near Hobart Lane and North Pleasant Street around 2:30 PM Saturday by jumping up and down while grabbing his groin with one hand while the other hand was holding a bottle of champagne.

The officer pulled his cruiser over and when he approached him, James shouted, "Fuck you, I'm just drinking from my open container." He then raised the bottle over his head in a threatening manner.

The officer grabbed his hand and a struggle ensued.  James managed to break free and sprinted away from the officer, who only then noticed his throbbing finger, which turned out to be broken.

Later Saturday night at 8:41 PM on Triangle Street near town center another officer spotted James, who still had a bottle in his hand.  Again Mr. James ran, only this time he fell, rolled onto his back and when the officer was reaching for him he kicked upward with both feet.

The kick landed, breaking two fingers.  James was wearing work boots at the time.

The Public Defender told the Judge his client, "has long term psych issues.  He was at the Cooley Dickinson Hospital for a month this past summer and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia disorder."

Judge Mulcahey agreed with the prosecution about revoking bail from the recent Orange Court case, but set bail at $750 for each APD assault count, or $1,500 total.  The Judge also set up a "competency hearing" to be held before Mr. James goes to trial next month.

#####

Note to readers:  Yes, both officers were named in court proceedings but I will not publish them because even though they are police they were still victims.