I’d like to clarify for the public why I offered to recuse myself from selection.

1. I have a large network of colleagues in Massachusetts municipal finance. Last night I did a quick scan of the phone numbers in my cell phone, and counted 102 state and municipal officials from 45 MA cities and towns and state government. That list did not include colleagues with whom I speak infrequently, which might have doubled the count. Neither did I count retired or out-of-state colleagues. And yes, I have golfed with several. One reason that I made that offer was to make sure that the City Manager knew that I was committed to objectivity despite my connections.

2. The second reason was that in 2008 when we hired David McGurl as treasurer, we received considerable pressure from an insider to hire an unqualified candidate. I anticipated that this would happen again and wanted Mr. Lynch to be able to consider this pressure if he felt that it would expend too much political capital to resist. Fortunately for Lowell, he stayed true to his principles and remained committed to hire the best candidate.

Finally, if I was such a “good friend” of Mr. Labreque’s, why did I not recommend him for hire in 2008?

Tom Moses

guide TO MA PUBLIC RECORDS

During the City Council meeting when Rodney was doing his best lawyer impersonation he kept waiving paper saying the law says. the law is clear. He stated the law was clear but clearly it isn’t!

I’d like him to explain to someone (maybe his mouthpiece at the Sun) what the paper he was waiving around was and what he was trying to do other than to MISINFORM the public?

I pulled down and attached A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law from the Sec. of State’s office. Releasing Resume’s isn’t clearly stated in this booklet that you have to do it or don’t have to do it. Of Particular interest to me was this:

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:

(a) specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute;

(b) related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding;

(c) 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;

Exemption (c) – The Privacy Exemption

Exemption (c), the privacy exemption, is the most frequently invoked exemption. The language of the exemption limits its application to: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.38 The privacy exemption is made up of two separate clauses, the first of which exempts personnel and medical files. As a general rule, medical information will always be of a sufficiently personal nature to warrant exemption.

39 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that exempting personnel information from disclosure serves to protect the government’s ability to function effectively as an employer.40 The release of certain personnel information could disrupt the government’s capability to conduct sensitive and careful investigations regarding employees.41 While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define personnel information.42 However, judicial decisions acknowledge that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific.43 The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive.44 Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the
documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis.45 Historically, this office has broadly interpreted the personnel exemption;however, based on more recent judicial decisions, a more narrow interpretation is necessary. The nature of some materials and the context in which they arise take them beyond what the Legislature contemplated when exempting personnel information.46 Generally, personnel information which is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee is sufficiently personal to be exempt pursuant to the first clause.

47 Such information may include employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information.

For example: Does this exemption allow all resumes of public officials to be withheld from disclosure? No. Some of the information contained in a resume may be exempt from disclosure because it relates to a specifically identifiable individual and is the type of information that is useful in making employment decisions. Exemption (c) does not, however, automatically render all resumes exempt in their entirety. The statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature.

The Public Records Law requires a case-by-case analysis of the applicability of its
EXemptions.

Specifically, any relevant degrees and certifications listed on an employee’s resume may be subject to disclosure upon request. Public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy in matters relating to their public employment and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether public employees possess the qualifications necessary to perform their jobs.

On WCAP yesterday morning Ted Panos asked the Manager about why he did not have Tom Moses recuse himself. His response simply put was he trusted Tom, so I emailed and asked him for an official statement about why he didn’t have Mr. Moses recuse himself, which is:

Simply stated, I didn’t feel it was necessary. First, the described relationship between Tom and Mr. Labrecque was more professional than social. I have similar relationships with various colleagues in municipal government and can easily make a distinction. Secondly, I have the utmost confidence in Tom’s ethics and professionalism. He would never jeopardize the well being of the City. Lastly, I knew that if Mr. LaBrecque was the final choice, or recommendation, that I would in fact do my due diligence and utilize my network of colleagues to ensure that he was the right choice for the position. At the end of the day my decision, which is the one that binds the City is based upon qualifications not any personal relationships.

The Sun has a couple stories today about this with some amusing comments. Councilor Bud Caulfield who PUBLICLY LOBBIED FOR HIS FRIEND TOM BELLEGARDE to get the DPW job (in open violation of Plan E) is quoted and has the nerve to criticise the Manager. Apparently the reporter forgot to ask Bud about that seemingly display of do as I say, not as I do. A little hypocritical there aren’t you BUD?

Same with Mr. Phelps who has a column about Nationwide Searches and getting hired by people you know. How did Mr. Phelps end up as the well paid PR flack for Nashoba Valley Technical High School while still writing a column and working for the SUN? Every notice that not many negative stories about that school appear in the Sun compared to what they do to Greater Lowell Tech?

A laughable statement in Moran article is ” City Councilor Rodney Elliott first brought their friendship to the public’s attention during Tuesday’s City Council meeting,:

Truthfully the statement should have been Elliot in one of the more memorable melt downs that the City has seen from a councilor, accused and attacked the character of the CFO, made unfounded and unproven accusations that he hired a friend over a qualified Lowellian.

Rodney has never apologized publicly for attacking the character of the CFO who working with the Manager improved the City’s financial situation and helped get Lowell off the State watch list. Guess the Fiscal Watchdog is more concerned with Election stunts than facts and qualifications. Gee the reporter didn’t ask Rodney DID YOU KNOW ANY OF THE CANDIDATES THAT APPLIED? Must have slipped his mind I guess.

What the Manager stated speaks volumes on the Character of the CFO. As far has the Resumes Issue, Rodney and the Sun continue to misinform about that and my next post will show that the state admits it is not a black and white issue and is a case by case basis.