Posted on 02/24/2007 11:12:45 PM PST by conservative in nyc
This could vindicate:
from today's Sun Chronicle:
Union tells its side of Wrentham police feud
Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:24 AM EST
This letter represents the police officers who comprise the Wrentham Police Association. We are asking Wrentham residents to take a moment and consider our concerns.
We submit to you that Selectwoman Jennifer Firth should step down from the Board of Selectmen as she has proven herself unfit to hold that position. Our call for Ms. Firth to step down is echoed by Town Moderator Keith Billian, quoted in the March 4, Sunday Boston Globe as follows: "For a member of the Board of Selectmen to act in the manner she did, without doing her homework, and making these statements based on rumor, I don't think she has the integrity to sit on the Board of Selectmen."
The facts are backed by hard documentation; public records available to any resident upon request. The documentation includes the minutes of the January executive session; the e-mail from Ms. Firth to Selectmen Dion and Labonte and the e-mail from Ms. Firth to Town Moderator Keith Billian; the tape of the February 6 Board of Selectmen's meeting; the Internet blog Ms. Firth claimed as proof of her allegation; and the District Attorney's investigation. Whether or not you are a political supporter of Ms. Firth should not matter. If you look at the documentation and withhold bias, you will reach your own conclusion.
The documentation, available for your scrutiny, provides the following:
Selectwoman Firth was arguing to remove the chief of police position from Massachusetts Civil Service and place the position under the direct control of the Wrentham Board of Selectmen. Ms. Firth expressed verbally at the executive session and in print on her e-mail, that she doesn't want to consider certain police officers for promotion due to their political activity. In the same e-mail, Ms. Firth states: "We may be required to hire people like this if we go civil service and they are high scorers on the exam."
ADVERTISEMENT
When Mr. Billian questioned whether Ms. Firth's e-mail violated the Open Meeting Law, he addressed it with Ms. Firth and she agreed to read it out loud at the Board of selectmen's meeting on February 6, 2007. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Firth sent the town moderator a second e-mail that read: "I had hoped we wouldn't have to publicly disclose the blog in which a police officer suggests killing a candidate for local office (Greg Pazurchek) as it will definitely compromise public confidence."
On Feb. 6, Ms. Firth failed to read her e-mail as promised to Mr. Billian as the agenda indicated she would. Instead, Selectwoman Firth used her position and a public meeting to repeat her allegation that a police officer, whom she stated was identified in a blog document she held up as proof, threatened to kill a political candidate. Selectman Zizza supported the allegation stating he read the blog and confirmed the officer was identified. Ms. Dunn stated she didn't know what everyone was talking about.
The chief of police requested the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office to investigate and determine if a threat was made by a police officer. The DA's report includes an interview with Ms. Firth, conducted eight days after she made explicit allegations against the police. Remarkably, Ms. Firth informs investigators she "doesn't know" who wrote the entry and "doesn't know" who she was referring to as a police officer. Ms. Firth also "doesn't recall" sending the e-mail. The District Attorney's Office formally concluded the threat was not real and a police officer was never identified in the blog, contrary to the claims made by Selectwoman Firth and Selectman Zizza.
After the District Attorney's report was released and in spite of the finding that the allegations were false, Chairwoman Dunn publicly proclaimed her "100 percent" support for Selectwoman Firth and has refused two requests from the Wrentham Police Association to be placed on the agenda for the last two meetings so we can respond. Ms. Firth was placed on the agenda to read her e-mail with one week's notice. Obviously, the damage control wagons are circling.
Now, Ms. Firth informs The Sun Chronicle and Country Gazette that the complaint filed by Wrentham Police Association to the Ethics Commission will not be pursued. The fact is that The Wrentham Police Association complaint was not formally received by the Ethics Commission when Ms. Firth publicly pronounced it dead. The fact is our complaint has not been dismissed or even addressed. Does Selectwoman Firth have an explanation for her claim that our complaint is not being pursued? It this another thing she misinterpreted? Who will she blame for her actions this time?
None of what you just read can be dismissed as "he said, she said." Selectwoman Firth's words and writings are her own. All of it is available for your review. Ms. Firth cannot run and hide from her own words, nor will we allow her to blame the police who she targeted for a smear campaign.
In closing, this subject has absolutely nothing to do with contract negotiations. We understand it is the job of selectmen to put our wages and benefits on the table to negotiate. What Ms. Firth tried to do is put our integrity on the table and we will not stand for that. Our integrity is not up for bargaining Ms. Firth.
William McGrath
President
The Wrentham story of the Board of Selectmen vs. the Police Union did not go away today.
There is a new story in the Sun Chronicle today about the selectment hiring an outside independent legal council at $130-$150/hr to do another investigation because apparently the word of the Norfolk DA wasnt good enough.......in other words, the selectmen were proven wrong and need to use town money in the time of deficit and overruns to carry on their witch hunt.
To the Wrentham citizens: there is a recall citizens petition being proposed to vote by the selectmen, I suggest showing for that vote, it's the only check & balance that will be available to the monopoly style gov't our town now has.
OJ Simpson paid alot of money to be "right", at least it came from his own pocket............
What is this all about? Anyone got a link to the thread the comment is taken from?
I coulda been famous!
I know the paper up there is staffed by liars, totally without credibility, who, so far as I know, never retracted the libel they printed about me.
Now, they claim that they got the quote which they falsely attributed to me from the cop. Even if that were true (and I doubt that it was) they could have clicked on the link at that time and still have gotten the story straight.
I had posted some uncomplimentary things about the quality of the reporting, and apparently the reporters took offense and decided to get even.
I’ve got some time this afternoon. I’ll see what I can dig up.
I would have loved a chance to comment on the comment I didn't make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.