Larry Harrington, a Foxborough Selectman running for re-election and having consumed way too much Casino KoolAid, chose to have his personal email exchange with a reporter posted on his re-election campaign web site, without advising the reporter of his intent.
One of Mr. Harrington's supporters then linked the re-election site to the KoolAid Consumers' facebook page.
Is anyone wondering why it is so important that Mr. Harrington be re-elected? How much is he earning? Or is it to simply rubber-stamp Mr. Kraft's reign?
Middleboro residents will remember that these smear tactics are all too familiar.
Below, is the Public Records statute that it would seem Mr. Harrington has violated.
You be the judge --
http://www.larryharringtonforselectman.com/blog/conversation-between-michele-bolton-and-larry/
Larry Harrington for Selectman
Re-elect for a Second Term
Apologies in advance from the webmaster, I may have gotten some of this conversation in an incorrect order.
On Apr 13, 2012, at 7:27 AM, “Michele Morgan Bolton”
Good morning Larry,
I am extremely intrigued by the editorial in the local paper about the town manager. I’ve noted incidents over time that seemed to indicate that officials may have regretted the decision to hire him, or could be thinking about taking action.
Is there anything you can tell me about this, either on- or off-the-record? I am particularly intrigued by the fact that he apparently (because I wasn’t there I can’t say for sure) wasn’t allowed at the selectmen’s table during the recent discussion about Trader Joe’s liquor license request.
Thanks,
Michele
From: Larry Harrington
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Michele Morgan Bolton
Subject: Re:
The BoS had nothing to do with the TM sitting out the hearing the other night. I have written the paper about the editorial and disputed any allegation that I am opposed to him because of his switch on the casino. I suggested they go back to the evaluation last spring, well before any casino issue, and they will see that four people rated thenTown Manager in the 70% range and the composite evaluation showed numerous areas for immediate attention.
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 13, 2012, at 10:05 AM, “Michele Morgan Bolton”
Thanks for your thoughts and just one more question (sorry to be barging in to your work day) … when does the performance review process for this year begin for Kevin Paicos? Is it now or later in the spring/summer?
From: Larry Harrington
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Michele Morgan Bolton
Subject: Re:
It will be within next month, should have been done by now but he was working with Jim and Lynda to finalize goals and evaluation form.
Larry
On Apr 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, “Michele Morgan Bolton”
OK, good. Thank you. I believe I will write a story for Thursday’s Globe South that says just that and may tie in to some of the more recent higher profile discussions re: casino memo, federal lawsuit etc.
What would you be able to say to me on the record about the town manager’s performance this year or how you expect the review to go. Also any specifics on when it will be done, disclosed to public etc.
From: Larry Harrington
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Michele Morgan Bolton
Subject: Re: Re:
Just board a plane, will send you something later. Enjoy the weekend
Larry
On Apr 14, 2012, at 8:35 AM, “Michele Morgan Bolton”
Hi Larry,
Still hoping you can send me a response, but not to the questions about a pending performance review for Kevin Paicos we corresponded about yesterday but about his belief and assertion that a majority of selectmen appear to be planning to force him out of his job and/or bring charges against him related to the billboard situation and subsequent lawsuit. He said he believes this is apparently the case not because of anything he has done, but because he is seen as an impediment to accommodation of the Kraft organization’s agenda.
So the direct questions are:
Are you and/or a majority of selectmen planning to force Kevin Paicos out? If so, why? If not, in what regard do you hold him as the town manager?
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Michele
When asked by multiple media outlets for a comment as Chair on the media interviews by TM Paicos about the rumors he would be fired, I responded as follows:
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Larry Harrington”
Date: April 14, 2012 11:34:51 AM HST
To: “Michele Morgan Bolton”
Subject: Re: Your Email
The BoS does its business in the public setting, and has not discussed firing the Town Manager. I have heard though, from multiple media outlets, that the Town Manager has suggested to them that the Board wants to fire him. His alleged reason for such statements appears to change based on who he is talking too. In one interview he claims it is political and the result of his stance on the casino. I guess in an attempt to influence the upcoming election. This is false. In another interview, he says it is due to his stance on the Kraft organization and again accusing the Board or some Board members of putting Kraft interests above the Towns interests. Again, in my view, an attempt to influence the upcoming election and is a false statement.
The Town Manager was evaluated last year BEFORE the casino or the Kraft issues ever surfaced. Four of the five members of the Board gave him low scores for someone with his experience. The forms are public and the evaluation was done in publIc. While the Board acknowledged many good things about Kevin’s performance, the areas to improve were comprehensive and represented a lac of basic leadership issues that you would NOT expect from someone with his experience.
The Board is about to evaluate Kevin for his year two performance within a few weeks. It is also public information the Board has asked for a report from Kevin on the recent lawsuit filed by the Kraft Organization. You may recall that based on specific advice given to the BoS by Kevin when he insisted we prohibit the KO representatives from speaking at a public meeting, and for which they filed a law suit against the Town and the BoS individually, and received a TRO allowing them to speak. The Board wants to know what Kevin knew, when he knew it, and whether the advice was sound. Kevin will be fine if the advice was sound and based on the facts.
Post Script to article that appeared this morning in Globe:
It is unfortunate that Kevin continues to seek media interviews rather than discuss his concerns with the Board in a public, that he uses the media to shape the upcoming election, and that he would continue to paint our community in a negative light while taking no responsibility for any performance issues he may have. It is also unprofessional for Lorraine to imply her four fellow Board members have potentially had illegal meetings or discussions without any basis of proof. She is totally incorrect. I encourage people to ask Town Hall for copies of the performance evaluations from last year, long before any of the casino or Kraft issues and see for yourself how the board evaluated the Town Manager.
Sent from my iPad
Public Records Law
G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)
“Public records” shall mean all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded
tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary
materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or
received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office,
department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the
commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority
established by the general court to serve a public purpose, unless such
materials or data fall within the following exemptions in that they 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;
:
For example: Can a public employee’s employment application and work
evaluation be disclosed? Generally, no. Disclosure of these records may
implicate an employee’s privacy interests. Under the first clause of
Exemption (c), certain personnel records may be withheld. Therefore, the
records custodian may properly withhold certain employment applications and
work evaluations under Exemption (c).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment