They HAD a Secret

Larry Shaffer, Stephanie O'Keeffe, Aaron Hayden

I call her Jane Doe

While public documents czar Alan Cote denied my appeal for full disclosure of the 8/30/10 Select Board executive session minutes where town officials huddled in secret for over an hour to discuss the strikingly sudden "retirement" of town manager Laurence Shaffer (the very night the Board was scheduled to publicly discuss his annual "performance evaluation"), the town grudgingly complied with my request for Shaffer's "Employment Settlement and release of claims" agreement and that of his office administrative assistant who also, coincidentally enough, simultaneously disappeared.

So here's the executive summary, but I invite you to click on the hotlinks below to read the documents in full: Shaffer's platinum parachute, after only four years of "service" to the town, a whopping $62,129.

And Jane Doe, serving only three-and-a-half years (earning $43,900 last year) sauntered off with $23,012. In the private sector you would be lucky to get a couple weeks to a month pay as severance (and even then only after a ten year minimum service), or in her case about $3,000 and Shaffer's case maybe $10,000.

“I’ve never heard of anybody, public sector or private sector, getting severance pay when they voluntarily leave employment,” said John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. Interestingly the legal agreements dubbed Jane Doe a "resignation," Mr. Shaffer a "retirement."

"In a week's time I'll be 62 years old and indeed I have been thinking about retirement," Shaffer told the Select Board back then (with two years still left on his contract). That final spring in Amherst Mr Shaffer retired a few things: divorcing his wife and selling his home on Amity Street.

But merely a month after his October 1 "retirement" he was seeking a city manager job in Michigan. According to the 12/10/10 Birmingham Patch: "Because Shaffer's significant other teaches at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, commissioners asked him about whether he plans to commute. Shaffer assured them that he's fully open to making Birmingham his permanent home if he is offered the position and that he's here to stay."

That "significant other" is former UMass psychology professor Jane Ashby who, five years ago, sat on the original Amherst "citizen search committee" that chose Shaffer over two other highly qualified candidates; she too divorced her spouse in Amherst last spring and headed off to Central Michigan University, a state school that made CBS Money Watch list of "25 Colleges With the Worst Professors."

The whereabouts of Shaffer's former administrative assistant is currently unknown.

Jane Doe's agreement
Click links above and below to read
Larry Shaffer's agreement

official minutes of 80 minute 8 /30 executive session (all two sentences, where one of them was redacted)

There He Goes Again

Larry Shaffer (far left) gets thumbs down from Jackson, Michigan City Council

UPDATE:  Friday afternoon.  Since the Jackson City Council clearly violated their Open Meeting Law to settle with Mr Shaffer (at his urging of course), just as the Amherst Select Board pushed the envelope two years ago, perhaps the $64,000 settlement will be thrown out by a judge.

####

So it will come as little surprise to those in Amherst who were paying attention during the short reign of Town Mangler Larry Shaffer that he has once again suddenly decided to retire in the middle of his contract, taking with him--after only a year of service--a cushy $64,000 in taxpayer monies, almost exactly the same amount he absconded with from Amherst as he suddenly "took stock" of his life and decided to retire...at least until he found another job.

One of the weaknesses of the Mass Public Documents Law is exempting employee performance evaluations from exposure.  When Shaffer and the Amherst Select Board hatched his $62,000  severance package  they did so under the cloak of an "executive session" and even refused to take proper notes during that hour-and-twenty-minute closed door pow wow, summing up the entire meeting in just two sentences and redacting one of the two when responding to my request for the meeting minutes.

And now, two years later, the Jackson City Council has given Larry Shaffer a $64,000 going away present after meeting in a brief executive session. Furthermore the severance package contains a mutual "non disparage" clause to forever gag those public officials.

At the very least Larry Shaffer's two recent fiascos will be forever available via the web as a warning to the next community.  After all, a little transparency now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. (Note to readers: last line, borrowed from Thomas Jefferson, is sarcasm.)

What goes around...

Larry Shaffer turns on the charm for Amherst Town Meeting

UPDATE Wednesday April 20: The Gazette today reports a sanitized version of Mr. Shaffer's new job prospects. Interestingly enough it appears in the print edition but not online. Editors probably did not want to allow Comments that could bring up dirty laundry. UPDATE: 8:45 AM: So about an hour after I posted that first update it magically appeared online. Coincidence I guess.
######################################
ORIGINAL POST: Sunday evening (a tad ahead of the Gazette)

My two site meters act like canaries in a coal mine, early alerting me to something of note suddenly occurring. On Tuesday a tsunami of hits from Facebook landing on a "Party House of the Weekend" post from last December almost crashed my widget.

I was actually in the middle of drafting an email to APD wondering if something terrible had just happened at 23 Tracy Circle (thinking somebody blew their brains out after posting a suicide note on Facebook linking back to me) when I managed to trace it back to the juvenile "F_ck the Fines" Facebook group.

Then a couple days ago I noticed numerous hits coming from Michigan all Googling "Larry Shaffer, Amherst" with some of them adding the term "gay". Hmm...

Turns out that former Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer is tops on the list for city manager of Jackson, Michigan a city about the size of Amherst (which should be a city). The gay thing is probably from his public interview use of the term "partner" for his um, other woman, Jane Ashby.

The one he divorced his wife over, and then suddenly retired from bucolic Amherst (with a taxpayer funded $62-K going away present) to follow her out to her new professorship at Central Michigan University.

I asked a conservative buddy of mine who makes Michigan her home which scenario would play better in Jackson: A gay man applying for city manager or a straight one who had an affair with his secretary while still married (costing taxpayers $23,000 to hush up) then flew the coop to be with yet another woman. All hypothetical examples of course.

Considering Michigan is more conservative than Massachusetts, with a huge evangelical community in Grand Rapids and a large Muslim population outside Detroit, it sounds like neither of my hypothetical scenarios would play out well.

So forget Mr. Shaffer's folly of charging a tax on Christmas trees sold by Boy Scouts, or getting spanked by the ACLU for attempting a heavy handed takeover of the July 4th Parade to accommodate left wing zealots or even purposely fudging figures to protect a municipally owned black hole of a golf course; his final undoing is a character flaw as old as Adam and Eve--and in this cyber age, one that cannot be hidden behind a fig leaf.



My conservative Michigan buddy agrees

Take my toys and go home!

The spoilsports are at it again. This time it’s the Amherst League of Women Voters who wishes to rain on our Parade.

They sent a letter to the Town Manager last week (knowing it would be picked up by the media) saying they are boycotting the July 4’th Parade because we, as a private entity, were not allowing everything and anything to march.

Kevin Joy and I met with them three months ago in my office and both Kevin and I really thought we had come to terms. They were not aware, for instance, that a public parade sponsored by the town (and I really worry about the 250’th Anniversary Parade two years from now) would have to allow anything and everything protected by the First Amendment.

Yes we all know you can’t yell “terrorist attack” in a crowded movie theatre. But there are some amazing things you can do.

For instance the F-word. Okay yeah, I use that one on occasion but NEVER in public. Or the famous, Only In Amherst, use of the C-word (for female genitals) or the N-word…that is, apparently, okay for rappers to use but not white guys. I would ban anybody from using it.

The League of Women Voters expressed concerned that our Parade Committee has no “elected” town officials. Well last time I looked, Kevin Joy and Larry Kelley are elected Town Meeting members and as such we even have Foreign Policy experience.

And last March 28’ I was also ELECTED to the powerful Amherst Redevelopment authority (after serving over ten years as the Governor’s appointee).

Interestingly at this point, only days from the Parade, we have not denied ANYBODY marching rights. Although yes, because this event is a Politics Free Zone, if someone wanted to march with an anti-Iraq war sign they would be denied.

But if someone wanted to march with a PRO-Iraq war sign, they too would be denied.

To everything - turn, turn, turn
There is a season - turn, turn, turn
And a time for every purpose under heaven

###################################################################################
Monday morning update: So naturally, the Gazette puts this trumped up deja vu controversy on the Front Page. I just found this exchange from last year:

In a message to Amherst listserve dated 7/65/06 1:24:02 PM, Amherst AC writes:

For those who have not followed this story this year, and I’m assuming that is this entire listserve, let me run it down chronologically: Without coming before the Parade committee to even ask what is allowed this year, the Democratic Town Committee sent a letter to the Amherst Bulletin (without sending it to the Parade Committee) saying they refused to march in the parade this year because they could not push their anti Iraq war policy.

The Gazette picked up the issue before the Bulletin went to press and then the Springfield Republican followed up with a Page One story also covered by Ch. 40 TV.
(That reminds me, I have to send the Democratic Town Committee a ‘Thank You’ note for the thousand$ in free publicity).

The parade went off perfectly. The protestors got their headlines and plenty of visibility from the sidelines. The parade committee maintained the integrity of the line of march. As far as I’m concerned, EVERYBODY won.

Then I’m forwarded an email circulated to the Democratic Town Committee suggesting they flood the Select board and Town Manager with critical comments about the parade, before we can get another permit.

So I call the Town Managers office early on July 5’th and I’m told another group (ACTV) has reserved 7/4/07 for a parade, and the town only allows one per day along any given route.

Kevin Joy and I go to Town Hall (Wednesday) and while standing there filling out the form Charlie Scherpa walks in and immediately signs it. So we hand in our completed form (something ACTV has not yet done).

The Town Manager requests a meeting for the next day (Thursday) to discuss the permit. Meeting could not have gone any better as far as we were concerned. He ran down his service background (Army, early 1970’s) as well as his family and then quickly said, “I’m going to sign your permit.”

A few hours later we get a waffling email. I respond immediately reminding him of what took place in the meeting. Again Mr. Shaffer says he will sign the permit. I assume he’s a stand up guy, so I assume the permit is now signed.

But, last year a mysterious addition appeared in the Parade Permit process saying you need to go before the Select board to get permission for a “street closing.”

So in the very near future we will go before the Select board to request the street closing. And yes, if they attempt a quid pro quo—street closing for allowing all signs—then we will refuse, they will reject our permit, and we will go to Superior Court.

Only in Amherst (Maybe I’ll start a BLOG)
Larry

In a message dated 7/6/06 11:38:52 AM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:

Larry, Kevin and Attorney Serduck,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me relative to the Parade Permit for July 4, 2007. At the meeting, I told you that it was my intent to sign the permit. I intend to do that in the short term. However, what remains important to me and what I will continue to pursue with you, is how the parade might serve as a means to bring us together as a community to support traditional American values espoused by the Independence Day celebration (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights). To the degree that the Parade continues to be a vehicle that celebrates and educates our community on traditional values, then you will have my support. However, I will continue to respectfully request that those who wish to espouse a position that may run counter to the views of the parade sponsors be allowed to participate. Let’s continue to discuss how that might happen.

Sincerely,

Larry Shaffer


In a message dated 7/6/06 12:42:20 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Larry,

Thank you for taking the time so early in your tenure to consider what some may deem a frivolous issue. However, as someone who loves written communication, it always makes me nervous when “however” appears more than once in a short dispatch.

My impression of our meeting was that you would sign the permit, PERIOD: No quid pro quo. I made it perfectly clear that the Parade Committee would not allow Mary Wentworth to march with blatant anti-Iraq war signs, just as we would not allow the KKK to march with racist signs.

We already allow “those who wish to espouse a position that may run counter to the views of the parade sponsors to participate”. Last time I looked, not a single member of the July 4’th Parade Committee was a member or supporter of SAGE, a peace activist group that disparages the current Commander in Chief, at a time when our nation is at war. Yet they have marched all five years, with placards celebrating the Bill or Rights (well, except for the 2'nd Amendment).

We are, of course, always open to discussion about who may participate in the parade. And if their message “celebrates and educates our community on traditional values”, we will most assuredly not have a problem,


Larry Kelley
Amherst July 4’th Parade Committee
(But speaking as an individual)


In a message dated 7/6/06 1:13:49 PM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:

Larry,

Thank you for your note. I shall sign the permit. But in conjunction with that assurance, I would like a commitment that the parade be as inclusive as possible because of your regard for the principles that are celebrated on July 4th. As Lincoln said, I wish to appeal to your better angels.

I would very much encourage everyone to look towards a resolution that brings the community together rather than an outcome that divides us.

I know I can count on your understanding and cooperation.

Larry

In a message dated 7/6/06 4:24:02 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Larry,

Thank you!

Rest assured that (although speaking for myself) our utmost concern is to bring together the community for a brief shining moment to celebrate the principles that created this, somewhat flawed, but most wondrous experiment in democracy.

Lincoln also said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Larry


New to the post, Shaffer to tackle parade concerns

BY MARY CAREY STAFF WRITER
AMHERST - This year's Fourth of July parade went off without a hitch, but some parties remain concerned over the private organizers' banning of would-be marchers with anti-war messages.

Now, Laurence Shaffer, the new town manager, has been drawn into the still-simmering debate.

'I need to be able to add to the value of the community by bringing disparate groups together,' Shaffer said Thursday.

By his third day on the job, Shaffer, the former town administrator in Vernon, Conn., had already heard from critics of the parade objecting to the limitations imposed by the private organizers.

Last year, the Select Board discussed whether the town could take over the parade or refuse to allow municipal employees to march in it as representatives of the town, but nothing came of the discussions.

Shaffer has now weighed in, after meeting with parade organizer Larry Kelley.

The new town manager said he will sign the permit for next year's parade, but he wants to meet with the organizers again to discuss making the parade more inclusive.

'To the degree that the parade is divisive in the community, it is counterproductive and inconsistent with everyone's goals of celebrating traditional American values,' Shaffer said.

Kelley, meanwhile, insists that the parade organizers will not allow protesters to march with 'blatant anti-war signs, just as we would not allow the KKK to march with racist signs.'

Shaffer said he expects the Select Board 'will take an interest' in the topic, 'and they will want to understand what opportunities might exist to push that agenda along, presumably.'

Mary Carey can be reached at mcarey@gazettenet.com.
Thank you for submitting your comments!
View all comments (1)

Larry Kelley [ Posted on: Friday - July 07, 2006 at 01:02 PM]
Actually, the new Town Manager met with original refounder of the parade, Kevin Joy and our attorney Michael Serduck as well. And in that meeting (Thursday morning) very clearly said he would sign our Parade permit without any stipulations (other than to give "consideration" to all groups, something we always do). My comment about not allowing KKK signs as well as anti war signs is not to compare peace activists with the KKK. It should also be noted that we would not allow PRO Iraq war signs either. Can't we all just get along for one holiday a year?


In a message dated 7/7/06 1:59:17 PM, terryfranklin@yahoo.com writes:


Larry --

I like the idea of an unrestricted parade. [See
letter to Nick Grabbe below.]

Of course it would have to be a different parade on
a different day than the 4th -- since so many groups
would drop out after they saw who I would invite.

-- Terry F.


****************************************************

To the Editor,

I am intrigued by the proposal being discussed for
another parade, in which no one would be excluded.
In addition to the fire engines from Holyoke, and
the bagpipers from Pittsfield, we would have the Ku
Klux Klan from New Bedford, The Aryan Nations from
Boston, the Nazi Party from Lowell, and the Outlaws
Motorcycle Gang from Worcester.
I'm serious. I'm not being "tongue in cheek" this
time, as I often am in my letters.
Amherst is a town which pays a lot of lip service
to the First Amendment, but which really despises
it. If we could actually welcome people with
different views -- no matter if they were
distasteful or offensive -- we would be a shining
light for the rest of the nation.

Terry Franklin


In a message dated 7/7/06 2:19:28 PM, Amherst AC writes:

Hey Terry,

Yeah, I think you would have trouble getting police, fire, Vets, and the Dakin Animal Shelter with that list. I mentioned to the ACTV guy who wants to steal our 7/4 Parade, that very notion: unrestricted signs could interest the KKK (who would probably love to march in the Peoples Republic of Amherst)
Larry

"...the bombs bursting in air."

Click to enlarge

UPDATE: 2:42 PM
Just stole this response off of SelectPerson Stephanie's blog. Note to readers: I have reset my settings to allow for 'Anonymous Comments' so please, be nice.


neil said:

Mr. Shaffer is a public servant who has made new policy, with or without consultation with his boss Mr. Weiss. Why can’t the public obtain a copy of his rationale in writing? What are the moral, legal or political justifications and how does he weigh the competing interests of the Parade Committee, protest advocates and other interested parties such as the parade-going public? I ask these questions not as a rhetorical device but because if Mr. Shaffer would provide the rationale, the policy and whether it is grounded in well-reasoned principles could be tested by public review. Certainly most of the work has already been done, it’s just a matter of committing it to paper. The public - those of us who must submit to the policy - await.

The position held by protest advocates is absolute. They claim an absolute right to protest in the Parade Committee’s Independence Day Parade. Neither Mr. Shaffer nor his boss Mr. Weiss disagree. Neither Mr. Shaffer nor Mr. Weiss have asked protest advocates to consider an alternative form or forum for protest on that day. Both Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss require the Parade Committee to concede their free speech and their right of association to the demands of protest advocates.

Select Board members Ms. O’Keefe and Ms. Brewer want town government to discuss and debate the new policy on its merits, to understand Mr. Shaffer’s policy requirements and the reasons for them, to understand the Parade Committee’s purpose and the merit or lack of merit in excluding protest marchers, to understand protest advocates’ demands and to explore how protest advocates’ demands can reasonably and satisfactorily be met. I think Select Board members O’Keefe and Brewer are on the right track and I endorse the transparency and reasoned analysis they advocate. Please, sign me up for more of their style of government.

I was confused by the Select Board meeting minutes. Should I believe Mr. Larry Shaffer’s press release

TOWN OF AMHERST TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT JULY 4TH PARADE IN 2009
and Amherst Leisure Services Parade Application for 4/7/9 9AM-5PM

that make it clear the town of Amherst has decided to disenfranchise the Parade Committee because the Parade Committee chooses to not include protest marchers or what Mr. Shaffer said in the Select Board Meeting?


“Mr. Shaffer said that there is still time before the 2009 parade and that he is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade might be run, and suggested that they talk about it. He said that the issues involved are very important but that the corrections for those issues are very small, and that he is happy to talk about it and would welcome a solution.”

What Mr. Shaffer means is that he "is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade...[must] be run” as a condition for getting the permit to run it on July 4, 2009. For Mr. Shaffer the “issues [separating the town and the Parade Committee] are very small” but he is being coy and he won’t spell it out. I will: Allow the 7/4/9 parade to be used by protest advocates and the town of Amherst will issue the Parade Committee a permit, otherwise the Parade Committee will be denied. I wonder if this condition as a matter of town policy is compelled speech and as such, misuse of authority.

It is clear Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss believe protest advocates are morally, legally or politically right and the Parade Committee are wrong. Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss cannot wrap their heads around the fact the Parade Committee has free speech rights too and that when balancing “competing interests”, a list of good solutions does not include giving the whole baby to one party.

Convinced of their own rectitude, Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss’ believe a conversation with Mr. Joy would rightly be a one-way street: Concede to protest advocates’ demands or the Parade committee will be denied a Parade permit for 7/4/9. Mr. Joy might consider sending Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss court decisions on freedom of speech and right of association. Mr. Joy did one better. He gave Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Weiss a copy of the Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade rules.

The Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade rules do not allow protest in the parade. And still, neither Shaffer nor Weiss recognize or agree that a parade celebration does not demand the right to protest. A blue ribbon panel of Amherst citizens produced the rules for the Amherst 250th Anniversary celebration parade, not a group of conservative-minded Amherst citizens like those who constitute the Parade Committee.

Here's my best assessment of Mr. Shaffer and his boss Mr. Wiess' official policy:

The Town of Amherst will not issue the Parade Committee a permit to conduct their Independence Day Parade in 2009 unless it consents to concede its right of association.

The Parade Committee's right of association has no authority when balanced against protest advocates right to exercise free speech including protest in the Parade Committee's Independence Day parade as marchers.


Let’s get Mr. Shaffer's policy rationale in writing and go from there.
April 30, 2008 2:35 PM


SelectPerson Stephanie O'Keeffe's Blog:

Public Comment

Kevin Joy of the Amherst July Fourth Parade Committee said that the committee had sought a permit last week to conduct the 2009 July Fourth parade, and were told that the Town had filed a permit to hold a parade on that day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Joy said that the filing of the Town’s permit and the hours therein appeared to be a definitive determination by the Town Manager that the Town would take over that parade and that no other parade would be allowed on that day. He asked that the Town Manager state for the record that the current parade committee would no longer be running the July Fourth parade in 2009.
Mr. Shaffer said that there is still time before the 2009 parade and that he is happy to discuss with the parade committee how the parade might be run, and suggested that they talk about it. He said that the issues involved are very important but that the corrections for those issues are very small, and that he is happy to talk about it and would welcome a solution.
Mr. Joy said that the permit had already been taken out by the Town, and read the last paragraph of the Town Manager’s press release regarding parade plans, and called that “pretty definitive.” Mr. Joy spoke of how long it takes to plan such a parade, suggesting a year to a year and a half.
Mr. Joy showed a document containing three paragraphs of expectations and regulations for parade participants. He said that he had been asked to consult on the Town’s 250th Anniversary celebration parade, and had reluctantly agreed. He said that he received a 13-page document f that parade’s regulations, and read from part of it about marching units being able to carry a banner with only the group’s name and without any corporate sponsorship, that only the parade-approved banner would be allowed and that no additional signs, placards, literature or other messages would be allowed to be shown, distributed or shouted, and so forth. He said there were many pages of such regulations and said that he believed that they were more restrictive on people’s rights than the regulations put forth by the July Fourth parade committee.
Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board would need to determine what role if any it had in the issue, and that it would need to schedule time to do that, probably in June after the conclusion of Town Meeting, if we were to opt to address it as a Select Board.
I said that I thought we should do that and that an open and televised discussion of the issue would be helpful for the public to participate in and watch. Ms. Brewer said that the rules for 250th parade need to be addressed, and that they may have been put together by that committee without knowledge of the July Fourth parade issues.
Mr. Shaffer agreed that the 250th parade rules need to be looked at, and said that as keepers of the public way, that the Select Board certainly has a role in the parade discussion and that it is in the Select Board’s authority to be involved with this issue if it so chooses.
Ms. Awad said that while the Select Board controls the public ways, the Town Manager controls parade permits, and that the Select Board doesn’t control what takes place on the public ways once a permit for their use has been issued. She said she completely supports the Town Manager’s filing for a permit for the 2009 parade. She said she isn’t sure that the Select Board should engage in a public discussion on the issue, unless it does so as a public forum that invites people from both sides to present their concerns and arguments. She said she didn’t think the Select Board should vote or express opinions when receiving those comments.
Ms. Brewer said she wanted consideration of whether or not the Select Board would officially participate in the parade to be part of a future discussion.

Amherst 7/4 Parade Fireworks

What would the Amherst July 4’th Parade be like without Amherst police, fire or ambulance apparatus in the line of march? An embarrassment!

There they go again! The Amherst Town Democratic Committee “corralled” like-minded activist groups to meet with Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer to discuss pulling town equipment from the Parade because we will not open it up to anyone and anything looking for exposure on that day. And yes, we pay for our Police detail to direct traffic (unlike the Pot Rally folks)

http://www.amherstdemocrats.org/
Old Business:

Private Amherst 4th of July Parade: Being fond of our 1st Amendment rights, ADTC has refrained for 2 years from participating.

On 2 days' notice, Town Mgr. Larry Schaffer carved out time for an open meeting on Friday, 21 Feb., with ADTC Chair Harry Brooks; the Chairs of the Green & Republican Town Committees; League of Women Voters; & SAGE, to consider concerns that many of us share.

More on this patriotic/matriotic effort later.

From: AmherstAC@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Shaffer, Larry
Subject: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
If Amherst is going to pull police and fire apparatus from the Parade this year we would appreciate a heads up as early as possible. And we would also have appreciated an invite to the "open meeting" last Friday morning that you carved out time for on only two days notice.
Larry Kelley
July 4'th Parade Committee


From: Shaffer, Larry
To: AmherstAC@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 1:31 pm
Subject: RE: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
We should talk. Have you rejected any applications for perspective participants in the 4th of July parade for 2008?
Larry

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: ShafferL@amherstma.gov
Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: 7/4 Parade

Larry,
No, we have not. And in fact, we have never officially rejected anybody since reconstituting the Parade in 2002.
Larry

Let the Judge decide...

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:06:08 PM, amherstac@aol.com wrote:
From: amherstac@aol.com
Subject: Appeal for Public Documents denial
Date: February 12, 2009 12:06:08 PM EST
To: pre@sec.state.ma.us

Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

I wish to appeal Amherst Town Manager Laurence Shaffer’s denial of my Public Documents Request dated 1/26/09. The document in question is an email of complaint to the town manager with job related criticism including the possible disappearance of town equipment; that statement was also copied to all five Amherst Select Board members. Therefor I believe it is a public document.

That whistleblower is no longer working as a municipal employee and will be receiving money (either tax money or insurance money) as severance compensation. I firmly believe the general public has a right to know.

And because that individual signed a “non disclosure” agreement with the town, he cannot tell his side of the story or make those potentially serious allegations public.

Sincerely Yours,

Larry Kelley
Amherst Town Meeting member
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
http://www.onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/

---Original Message-----
From: Shallow, Joanne (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:32 pm
Subject: RE: Appeal for Public Documents denial

your case number is SPR09.044. In app one week you will receive a formal
acknowledgement letter in the mail with the case number and name of the attorney
assigned to review your appeal. What is you mailing address


On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:02:33 PM, amherstac@aol.com wrote:

Hi Joanne,
Sorry, I should have included that (and today's date):
Larry Kelley
460 West St.
Amherst, Ma. 01002
Thank you for a prompt response.
Larry

##################################################################
Memo: Town Manager
Re: Complaint from municipal Information Technology Department worker
1/26/09
Dear Mr. Shaffer,

Could I please get any written or electronic correspondence during the calendar year 2008 up to today’s date concerning a complaint by an Information Technology municipal employee on how the department is/was being managed including his communications, and any response from your office to him, the IT manager or the Amherst Select Board?

Larry Kelley

amherstac@aol.com
Cc: Amherst Select Board

From: Shaffer, Larry
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 4:22 pm
Subject: RE: Public Documents Request

Dear Mr. Kelley,

Could you be more specific with your request?

Thank you.

Larry

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: ShafferL@amherstma.gov
Sent: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 4:27 pm

Hey Larry,

Specifically an email sent to you and Cc'd to the Select Board, I believe in November, from XXXXXX who is now no longer employed with the town.


Larry


From: Shaffer, Larry
To: LarryK4
Cc: DJENKINS@K-PLAW.COM; Zlogar, Kay ; Eunice Torres

Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 5:12 pm

Subject: FW: Request for Documents

Larry:

Please let this acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of January 26, 2009, requesting production of an e-mail from XXXXXX to myself and the Board of Selectmen in November 2008. Although record responsive to your request exist, such documents may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to the Public Record Law.

The document may be withheld pursuant to:

Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) permits a custodian to withhold records that are:

Personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has defined personnel records to include any records that would be helpful in making determinations regarding hiring and firing. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The court specifically noted that employee work evaluations and promotion and termination information pertaining to a particular employee fall within the definition of personnel records. Thus, certain responsive records are exempt as they fall within the definition of personnel records and relate to specifically named individuals.

Exemption (d). The document relates to the development of policy. Exemption (d) is intended to avoid release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed and applies to:

Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this sub clause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based.

The application of the exemption is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. Babets v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Services, 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). In considering exemption (d), the court in General Electric Company v. Department of Environmental Protection, 429 Mass. 798, 807 (1999) stated, “The purpose of exemption (d) is to foster independent discussions between those responsible for a governmental decision in order to secure the quality of the decision.” Id. Accordingly, premature disclosure of the document may jeopardize the Town’s ability to analyze the issues, consider the recommendations of the employee, and reach a decision as to how to proceed in this matter. As such, responsive records are exempt pursuant to exemption (d) of the Public Records Law.

Exemption (f). Further, the requested report contains innumerable details regarding voluntary complainants and witnesses. Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law allows a custodian of records to withhold from disclosure those records that are:

Investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.

One of the purposes of this exemption is to encourage people to come forward and co-operate in matters under investigation. Globe Newspaper Company, 419 Mass. at 863; Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 354 N.E.2d 872 (1976). Thus, exemption (f) permits the permanent withholding of any details that would tend to identify complainants and voluntary witnesses, even in those instances where an investigation has concluded.

As noted, the responsive records are replete with details that would identify complainants, as well as witnesses that voluntarily provided information and cooperated with the investigation. The SJC has held that, “[t]he inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual . . . must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual…” Globe Newspaper Company v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Considering the content of the responsive records from the perspective of the public, as well as those who are familiar with the subject matter, the names and identifying details of the voluntary witnesses and complainants are inextricably intertwined with the remainder of the information contained in the document. The identifying details cannot be redacted in such a way so as to permit disclosure of the records without identifying the individuals involved.

Stated differently, due to the small number of individuals involved in the investigation and their involvement with the matters at issue in the document, the document may not be redacted in such a way so as to avoid the possibility that the unredacted portion of the records may indirectly identify these individuals. Accordingly, the responsive documents will be withheld from disclosure pursuant to exemption (f).

Based on the above your public records request is denied. You may appeal this decision to the Supervisor of Public Records.

Very truly yours,

Laurence Shaffer
Town Manager

I of course hit "reply all," and since the Town Manager is a veteran I'm sure he gets the reference:

Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: Request for Documents
To: Amherst Town Manager
From: Larry Kelley
Re: Public Records hoarding

Dear Laurence,

Nuts!

Very truly yours,

Larry K
#############################################################
I then get a hit on this blog at 5:55 PM (less than 15 minutes later) from someone in Boston doing a Google search: 'Open Meeting Law, Public Records Law, Amherst Town Manager'. And of course, the only folks outside Amherst on that email 'reply all' list was the town law firm, those Big City Boys, Kopelman and Paige, P.C. Hmmm... But you would think Big Time lawyers would do their research BEFORE giving their paid opinions.


You may want to turn up your volume slightly to catch all of this because not only did ACTV SCREW UP the video portion of Monday night's SB meeting, I think they also forgot to turn on my microphone (hey, what the Hell do you want from a $250,000 publicly funded operation)

But we can't send a positive message to our employees?
Let's hear if for whistleblowers

If you don't like the report...

Left to right: Shaffer, SB Princess Stephanie O'Keeffe and rookie Aaron Hayden.

So these returns from a search on the venerable Daily Hampshire Gazette under the term Amherst Town Manager Blue ribbon committee really tell the story. "Long awaited" and "coming soon" in the same headline all time/date stamped almost six months ago.

Still no public release of the report. Although my reliable source stated it was submitted to the Town Mangler back in May.

Could it be they did not champion the Override as a cure all?

1. Shaffer: Long-awaited blue ribbon panel conclusions are coming soon Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Wednesday Mar 4, 2009

   AMHERST - A three-member panel studying efficiencies in the organization of the town government and schools for more than a year is preparing to release its conclusions. Town Manager Larry Shaffer ... more...

   By SCOTT MERZBACH Staff Writer

2. Expert budget advice pending, Shaffer says Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Monday Aug 18, 2008

   AMHERST - A Blue Ribbon Task Force designed to give town and school administrators insight into making the government and schools more efficient has not yet made any recommendations. Town Manager L... more...

   By SCOTT MERZBACH Staff Writer

3. Amherst forms 'blue ribbon' budget committee Daily Hampshire Gazette

   Wednesday Dec 19, 2007

   AMHERST - Town officials are seeking advice from both financial experts and regular folks as they prepare spending plans in yet another tight year. Town Manager Larry Shaffer has appointed a "... more...

   By NICK GRABBE Staff Writer

Behold the power (and treat it with respect)

Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin
Public Records Division
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
9/4/09

I wish to file a complaint and request a formal ruling over Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer deleting/destroying my electronic comment to his blog, hosted on the official Amherst town taxpayer funded website (http://www.amherstma.gov/), concerning a controversial town owned golf course and the economic impact of recent operations.

‘A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law’ clearly states: “The statutory definition of “public records” does not distinguish between traditional paper records and records stored in the computer medium. Rather, it provides that all information made or received by a public entity, regardless of the manner in which it exists, constitutes “public records.”

My (attempted) Comment to Mr. Shaffer’s blog post was neither obscene nor factually incorrect; therefore he as a "custodian of a public record" had no right to delete/destroy it to prevent public disclosure.

Town Manager Shaffer's disingenuous closing paragraph declared:

“Cherry Hill Golf Course financial report for Fiscal Year 2009 is complete. Cherry Hill revenue for the period is $253, 725. and expenses for the same period are $210,611. Cherry Hill's operation has generated a surplus of close to $100,000. over the last two years. Much credit goes to Linda Chalfant and Barb Bilz for their work at Cherry Hill.”

My attempted response/rebuttal (automatically time/date stamped by Blogger software):

Blogger LarryK4 said...

“Yes Larry, but the purported "profit" does not include hidden costs like employee benefits, insurance, and capital improvements (underground storage tank, security fencing and greens mower) which combined come to over $100-K.”
August 27, 2009 9:46 PM

And while LarryK4 could appear to be an Anonymous source, if you click on the nickname/hotlink it brings you to my blogger Profile Page that clearly spells out my identity. Besides, Mr. Shaffer has previously published comments from me (under the nickname LarryK4) on his blog.

Mr. Shaffer did upload another post on August 29 and at that time would have discovered my Comment concerning his August 7 upload. His blog has “Moderation enabled” so that the blog owner gets to approve comments before publication. In this case he did not.

Since my tax dollars are involved I find that exceedingly unfair.

Over the past ten years the Internet has evolved from the Wild Wild West to standard operating procedure. Blogs are perhaps the most powerful tool for communication/activism spawned by this 21’st Century medium. And for the Town Manager (a public official) to abuse the town website for unfair advantage in Public Relations/Spin is blatantly unfair.

Larry Kelley (AKA: LarryK4)
Amherst Town Meeting Member
Amherst Redevelopment Authority
5th Generation Amherst resident
http://www.onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/

The other Larry's Blog (note frequent updates and comments...not!)

They've got a secret

The Select Board gave Larry Shaffer (on left) the thumbs up for his mysteriously sudden retirement
UPDATE: 4/17/11

How it all, finally, turns out
And continues...

###################################
UPDATED: Friday 9: 30 AM

The interesting thing is in the official minutes they did give me only one sentence is redacted. Hmm...

However, the entire one-hour-and-twenty minute executive session "discussion" was covered by Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe (demonstrating her PR flak background) in only two sentences. So the other way to look at it is they redacted half the damn report!

The other telling thing about the Town Attorney blowing me off is that he cites "Wakefield Teachers Association vs School Committee of Wakefield"; and that had to do with a middle school male teacher being disciplined for making inappropriate written comments to a couple of his young female students and being "disciplined" (No, strangely enough he was not fired only docked three weeks pay).

A judge ruled that since the documents in question had to due with the "performance" of a public employee it was exempt from Public Documents Law request. So I guess it boils down to who initiated the break between Shaffer and the town. Did he do it of his own volition because he was getting old and tired and simply wanted to retire or did the Select Board get wind of some inappropriate activity and implement disciplinary action?
###################################

Supervisor of Records
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Cote,

I wish to appeal the recent decision of the Town Of Amherst denying me the vast majority of minutes from the 8/30/10 Select Board Executive Session to discuss the sudden retirement of then Town Manager Larry Shaffer, the highest ranking appointed public official in town with an annual salary of $127,528.

The Executive Session lasted over an hour and resulted in the Town Manager being released from his employment contract two years early, AND the payment of four months bonus pay. Since all the monies are tax dollars, The People who financed this arrangement have a right to know the details.

And since Mr. Shaffer almost immediately applied for Town Manager/City Manager positions in the state of Wisconsin, it's obvious he did not abruptly retire from Amherst due to a medical condition.

As always, thank you for service championing the peoples right to know by keeping government records open and transparent.

Larry Kelley
596 South Pleasant St.
Amherst, Ma 01002

So much for "open government" bragged about on the town website


Thought I was doing pretty good up to this point, but I just knew a "However" was coming...




Page 2 legal response via google docs

And now, the end is near...

And she better get used to it. Anybody with an issue they feel strongly about (and in Amherst that about describes EVERYBODY) where the Select board votes 3-2 and Anne Awad is the deciding vote, will be sorely tempted to take the matter to court.
UPDATE: Wednesday morning:

In a message dated 5/13/08 10:01:01 PM, Amherst AC writes:
To: Town Manager, Larry Shaffer
From: Larry Kelley, Amherst Town Meeting
5/13/08
Could I please get the written opinion of the town attorney (as mentioned on the floor of Town Meeting on Monday night) concerning Select board member Anne Awad buying a home in South Hadley with her husband declaring it a Homestead Estate and the legality of them staying on as Amherst town officials?

Thanks,
Larry Kelley

In a message dated 5/14/08 8:43:03 AM, ShafferL@amherstma.gov writes:
Larry,
There is no written opinion on that topic. I asked for the Town Counsel’s opinion on residency verbally and received the reply verbally.

Larry Shaffer


In a message dated 5/14/08 8:53:31 AM, Amherst AC writes:
Hey Larry,
Thanks, I kinda figured that.
Larry

And the answer is...

9:55 pm. In a stunning, despicable, display of Political Correctness (Only in) Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer singlehandedly decided to “Take Over” the July 4’th Parade in 2009.
######################################################
Town Manager Report! 9:17 (only 12 minutes behind schedule):

Shaffer reads a press release about the Parade. Yeah, yeah, yeah we’re “remarkable”--but he quickly gets to “however”...

“First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech." The July 4’th Parade Committee doesn’t get the irony of this free speech situation. I will not mess with them this year (no rescinding their permit or pulling town apparatus). But here come another “however”:

The town will sponsor a July 4’th Parade in 2009. LSSE (the recreation empire) who runs the Fireworks will also run the Parade. And we will exclude competition by refusing a permit for any private group wishing to run an old fashioned non-political Parade.

All individuals should be allowed to carry whatever they want with the exception of hate crimes or obscenity.

Nice try. How the hell are you going to enforce that Mr. Shaffer? If the town runs the Parade then the KKK can march and anti-war zealots can march with a F_CK Bush sign... whatever. As a matter of fact, I may march in their parade with a sign saying “F_CK Shaffer.

Selectperson Alisa Brewer reads our statement sent to the board and Shaffer last week.

9: 30pm Select Person O’Keeffe calls Shaffer on his framing it as a First Amendment issue. It’s not. The Parade Committee has made many attempts at compromise…what has the town done?? Where’s the compromise on the town part?

Select Person Brewer asks about “FUNDING” the town parade???? You know the $15,000 it will cost to put on a professional production with PAID staff doing the organizing.

Ms. Brewer also mentions how Shaffer has come off as "bullying" the Parade Committee with threats. (Shaffer doesn't respond)

Weiss jumps in and says he never saw it as bullying. He also says he sees it as a 'Free Speech' issue. And finds it inappropriate for the town to participate.

The rookie Stein mumbles something about folks should have the right to protest Iraq and Awad talks about the committee yanking folks from the Parade who were carrying signs.

So if it had come to a vote it would have been 3-2 with His Lordship Weiss, former Czar Awad and rookie Stein voting to support Boss Hogg's draconian measure and O'Keeffe and Brewer opposing.

Trouble in Paradise?

 Larry Shaffer fist bump.  About to butt heads with the Mayor

Former Amherst, Massachusetts Town Manager now Jackson, Michigan City Manager Larry Shaffer had a hilarious quote in yesterday's local paper:  "I don't give up easily" asserted Shaffer in response to the city council reversing a yes vote he supports on an expensive solar energy project for their waste water treatment plant.

Mayor Martin Griffin strongly opposes the initiative saying, "I hope the project is dead."  Interesting power struggle.   Since Jackson has a Council/Manager form of government, the Mayor is apparently more of a figurehead than actual CEO.  But, nevertheless, Mayor Griffin looks like a strong guy who takes tough stands (slumlords want him recalled over a rental registration law he supported).

Mr. Shaffer, on the other hand...

Let's see, he took a strong stand on requiring Boy Scouts pay a tax on Christmas Tree sales, a beloved annual (tax free) town tradition for 60 years.  He tried to withhold the parade permit for the privately organized July 4 Parade to create a competing municipal parade that would embrace war protesters.  And he supported the Select Board's annual refusal to fly 29 commemorative American flags in the downtown to remember the horror of 9/11.

Best of all, he railroads the Select Board into giving him a two year extension on his contract and then only a few months later, suddenly, decides to "retire," to Michigan, leaving behind his wife here in Amherst.  Meanwhile his secretary concurrently vanishes with a $25,000 taxpayer payout nobody wishes to talk about.

Doesn't give up easily, eh?  I guess it depends on how you define "easily".  



 

A new paradigm for golf?

Once again we witness the night and day difference between current town manager, John Musante, and the former town mangler Larry Shaffer--this time concerning something of paramount importance: truth-telling.

Five years ago Leisure Services and Supplemental Education and Shaffer had the audacity to issue a press release heralding that year's golf balance sheet, trumpeting a $7,200 "profit" while ignoring $40,000 in "hidden costs" (employee benefits, insurance, new equipment).

In an interview with the Springfield Republican town manager Larry Shaffer crossed the line by saying Cherry Hill required "no tax support." I even asked him at a follow up public meeting if he was misquoted, and he again reaffirmed the lie.

At last night's Select Board meeting the new Finance Director Sandy Pooler admitted Cherry Hill fell far short of FY2011 projected revenues ($270,000), which almost matched the actual $263,670 total cost of operations, with an intake of only $223,537 as first reported here six weeks ago, or a loss of over $40,000.

Of course he could not help but parrot the old excuse of that darn New England weather, but at least he also admitted the down economy takes a toll on the rich man's game of golf. Maybe now that transparency is the new marching order from Town Hall, citizens will get a true picture of the cost of golf.

And, unlike the scenic vistas aficionados admire, it ain't pretty.

Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in

Former Town Manager Larry Shaffer, standing center (way back in his angelic days)

From: White, Donald (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 10:30 am
Subject: Public Records Appeal - SPR11/009

Mr. Kelley,

I wanted to provide you with a brief update on the status of the public records appeal that you submitted to this office. I have been in communication with the counsel for the Town of Amherst to discuss the information redacted from the 8/30/10 Amherst Select Board Executive Session Meeting Minutes. At this time, town counsel has withheld that information and asserted Exemption (c) – The Privacy Exemption. Although the town has asserted this exemption, I am awaiting further information that will support the use of this exemption. I expect to speak further with town counsel next week, as they are out of the office this week.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions, but I at least wanted to provide you with the information that I had on the appeal to date. Thank you.


Donald White
Staff Attorney


Dear Mr White,

Thank you for the brief update. Nice when a government agency in charge of Open Meetings can be so open themselves. I hope when you make your final decision I can also receive the results via electronic mail.

As I'm sure you know, 'Exemption C The Privacy Exemption' is the #1 reason cited by municipal officials for turning down Public Documents requests. But public officials have a lesser expectation of privacy than the taxpayers who fund their salaries.

And the state allows the exception to be trumped when "there is a paramount public interest in disclosure." Indeed I strongly believe the sudden departure of Town Manager Larry Shaffer, taking with him four months of salary, rises to level of "paramount public interest"; and since he very soon thereafter reentered the job market in Michigan, I'm sure it was not a medical condition that fueled his hasty flight.

The redacted lone sentence I seek represents one half of the 120 minute Executive Session, as Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe covered the entire meeting with only two sentences. That too is questionable record keeping.

Maintaining public trust should be your paramount concern. When elected local officials hatch backroom deals in a private manner financed with public taxpayer money, it diminishes that sacred trust.

Again, thank you for considering this important matter.
Larry Kelley

Correction: The Executive Session was one hour-and-twenty-minutes (80 minutes) not two hours (120 minutes). Still, pretty hard to capture in only two sentences

Kendrick Park mystery structure solved

From: Shaffer, Larry
Sent: Fri 10/2/2009 9:54 AM
To: Arcamo, Judith; Musante, John; Mooring, Guilford; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: O'Keefe, Stephanie
Subject: RE: Kendrick park structure

I have to get up to see the structure.

I am trying to figure out a balance for the use of the park. Interesting aspects of community life highlighted in brief displays may be a way to achieve a level of excitement. In many ways, I am trying to figure out a good mix of usages….passive, interesting, temporary.

Hope you are well.

Larry

From: Arcamo, Judith
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Musante, John; Mooring, Guilford; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: Shaffer, Larry; O'Keefe, Stephanie
Subject: RE: Kendrick park structure

Yes, Larry approved this back in August. The event begins today through the 11th during meal times 2:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Judith
Administrative Assistant to the Town Manager

From: Musante, John
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Mooring, Guilford; Arcamo, Judith; Seaman, Katherine
Cc: Shaffer, Larry
Subject: FW: Kendrick park structure

???????

From: sjokeeffe@gmail.com (Stephanie O'Keeffe)
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Musante, John
Subject: Kendrick park structure

Just curious: The structure put up yesterday or the day before on Kendrick Park for Sukkot -- presumably someone asked permission to do that? How long will it be up? People will ask.

No Miracle on Boltwood Ave

Last night Amherst Town Manager Larry Shaffer once again reaffirmed that his unfair tax on the joy of Christmas has not been his “…most glorious moment in public administration.”

He also garnered little support from the Select Board. Kusner (looking at Shaffer): “We were caught off guard by this; I just want the public to know it was your decision.” Select person Brewer distanced herself: “Even though the Town Manager has the legal authority under the town act I would hope he will continue to talk to us about this…”

Brewer also (looking at scout representatives) wanted to publicly “thank the scouts for being so agreeable; I realize you didn’t have much choice…I’m glad we’re still talking about it.”

Clueless to the core (if indeed he has one), Shaffer still doesn’t get it. His bland” report” was a rehash of cold bureaucratic excuses.

Explaining his $1 per tree tariff Shaffer states: “They went away, set up their sale of Christmas trees. And I expected that arrangement would go on unbeknownst to anybody. Little did I know this would become the cause célèbre going forward.”

For a public official to arrange a deal in private, hoping that his dictatorial terms remain "unbeknownst", is bad policy.

UPDATE: 2:36 Yeah I know, the video just uploaded 10 minutes ago but my friend and fellow investigative blogger Paolo at northamptonist.blogspot.com just forwarded me the link to WHMP radio's softball interview with Shaffer. I love his comment at the outset "I don't know if anything went wrong." Talk about clueless.
http://www.theriverondemand.com/mp3/vannah/larryshaffer.mp3

UPADATE: 3:30 Ch. 22 enters the fray (what took them so long?). Where's the AP?
http://www.wwlp.com/Global/story.asp?S=7511628

They HAD a secret #2

Two years ago the assistant I.T. Director was let go for sending an email complaint about his boss to town manager Larry Shaffer, also copied to the entire Select Board.

I filed a public documents request for said dispatch; the town manger turned me down citing Exemption C, the most often used excuse: "Personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

But in late February I requested any and all "separation, severance, transition, or settlement agreements made since January 1, 2005 between the town of Amherst and their employee's that include compensation, benefits, or other payments worth more than $5,000."

So here it is: Just another case of an employee who suddenly disappears (with $25-K in hand)
####################################
A Gazette reporter called yesterday to interview me about the original post concerning the town manager's sudden retirement with a $62-K going away present and his, errr, administrative assistant also disappearing that same day with a $22-K payday after only 3-and-a-half years employment with the town.

He wanted to know "why the people should care?" Good question. Not sure I answered well enough for him and even if so it may never see the light of print anyway, so I will answer it again here.

Of the 13 individuals covered under these agreement more than half of them are simply routine retirements or early retirements. But because they are all kept secret, it casts a shadow on those that are routine, as though they did something wrong.

When the town attorney informed the town manager he had to give up the documents, Mr. Musante requested another week to contact the former employees via snail mail to inform them that someone had been given their legal agreements.

And I'm sure some of them--even those who should not be--started to get nervous.

The highest payout ($44,000) was actually the most normal in that it was a very-high ranking employee with over thirty years of distinguished service. That settlement included unused vacation pay, sick time, personal days, longevity pay, etc.

Another woman who had left the same position Ms. "Jane Doe" occupied (administrative assistant to the town manager--and I'm told by multiple sources did a much better job) was not on the settlement list, because she received no money. Since she voluntarily resigned her town position for a better job at Amherst College, you would expect no such settlement.

So then why did "Jane Doe" get paid $22-K when she "voluntarily" resigned ten months later?

If the former town manager Larry Shaffer had used $22-K out of his $25-K going away present, then I would have not pursued this case so vigorously. But since it was all funded with tax dollars, I honestly believe the people have a right to know.

A template of possibilities

clockwise: Peg Roberts, Larry Shaffer, Aaron Hayden, John Coull, Jonathan Tucker

The Amherst Redevelopment Authority along with Town Manager Larry Shaffer and head planner Jonathan Tucker took a roadtrip on Friday as a fact finding mission for the proposed Gateway Project in partnership with Umass to develop the former "frat row" into a mixed use commercial development with high-end student housing, thus seamlessly connecting our downtown with the main campus.

Like Amherst MA, Hanover NH is dominated by one major higher educational institution: Dartmouth College. Although compared to Umass, their total student population of only 6,000 seems dowright intimate.

Interestingly Wikipedia describes Hanover as a "rural town." I found their downtown to be larger and more vibrant than Amherst town center. and I also noted a distinct lack of vacant storefronts and a lot of construction underway.

Hanover Town Hall cloaked under cover of ivy

But their Town Room was spacious and well cooled. Town Manager Julia Griffin far left.

Perhaps because of the involvement by Dartmouth College, who owns a large stockpile of commercial property and housing for students and staff--all of it on the taxrolls.

Yes, downtown Hanover even has a hardware store, situated in a building owned by the college (actually the entire block) where the rents are below market rate because they understand that a lively downtown requires a good mix of offerings.

Mixed use block (retail on ground, housing above) owned by Dartmouth College in town center
And they even have a hardware store!

And all of the soon to be proposed Gateway Project would be on the taxrolls.

The ARA meets this coming Wednesday night and we will discuss in open session what we learned on our one-day summer vacation.

Christmas Tradition

Now open for business:  Boy Scouts Christmas Tree store

The other Christmas tradition commencing on Black Friday also involves sales, but a tad less cutthroat than what occurs at your local Mall.  

Since the 1950s Boy Scouts have used Kendrick Park as a sales showroom for their #1 fundraiser.  Some of you may remember the "only in Amherst" incident back in 2007 (A story I broke of course) when then Town Manager Larry Shaffer -- supported by then Select Board Chair Anne Awad -- wanted to charge them rent via a $1/tree tax.  

Which of course went over like drilling oil wells in a national park.  

Today the Grinch, err, Larry Shaffer, is long gone and the town even allowed the Business Improvement District to decorate one of the trees on Kendrick Park near the showroom with holiday lights.

Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Clause (even in Amherst).