Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Kent George's reprehensible attack on ... well ... just about everyone

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Okay, so I THINK that we agree that it would have been inappropriate to use clout to derail the audit (your unexpected introduction of the "everyone's doing it" line of thought was a bit confusing).

    To recap, then, you're asserting that Mr. George's (self-admittedly groundless) speculation linking specific people to that inappropriate action is NOT a questioning of their integrity?

    Anyone else willing to sign on to that view?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Very clever, Jeff.
    Don't put words in my mouth.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    I put no words in your mouth, nor was I attempting to. Rather, I asked if that was what you were saying.

    I'm just trying to understand where we agree/disagree, and why.

    1. Do we agree that using clout to derail the audit would be inappropriate?
    2. Do we agree that Kent George linked specific people to that inappropriate act?
    3. Do we agree that such a linkage questions the integrity of those people?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Another Crier letter on the audit, this one by George Harris.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Thanks, John, I was about to link to Mr. Harris' letter myself. While I have a few problems with it, it presents an instructive contrast to Mr. George's despicable effort in two key areas.

    1. Mr. George questions the integrity of numerous people while admittedly having ZERO basis for doing so. Mr. Harris makes no such attacks.

    2. Mr. George apparently couldn't be troubled to lift a finger to gather any of the readily available facts. Mr. Harris took the time to do so.


    As to the flaws in Mr. Harris' argument:

    a. Mr. Harris writes, "There is no precedent of which I am aware for a state agency to refuse to accede to a legitimate request of Wayland Town Meeting for assistance."

    This is a curious idea for Mr. Harris to assert, as it was just several sentences prior that he gave the Auditor's reason: "We do not believe that the potential for fraud or criminal activity is present here." That sounds like a good reason to me.

    b. Mr. Harris writes, "Of course the potential exists for fraud!" [unnecessary exclamation mark his]

    The potential ALWAYS exists for fraud. But that's a far cry for there being any evidence of fraud. In Mr. Harris' past work, the potential for malpractice exists. But that potential is in no way indicative of any actual malpractice having taken place. And to my knowledge, Mr. Harris has never been disbarred.

    c. Mr. Harris writes, "In responding to my public records request, the state auditor has excluded three emails on the basis of attorney-client privilege. What is the state auditor hiding from the public?"

    Am I correct to understand that Mr. Harris is citing the claim of attorney-client privilege as evidence of "hiding?" I'm not a lawyer, but it was my understanding that said privilege is not an indication of something being wrong, but rather, a fundamental principle of our justice system.

    d. Mr. Harris writes about the Auditor's note to her staff, "Letís talk about this. Who are the legislators? Conroy and Fargo?Ē

    I would think (or at least hope) that it would be standard practice for different agencies and legislative bodies to communicate about issues that come before them. To be fair, Mr. Harris did not explicitly suggest that the Auditor did any wrong, but one would not be faulted for reading that into his words.

    e. Mr. Harris writes, "[I]f Ms. Bump was at all interested in helping Wayland sort out this financial mess, she or her staff would have taken the time to meet face-to-face with Wayland proponents before concluding she would not honor Town Meetingís request. Itís highly likely that local politics influenced her decision."

    Okay, I take it back, Mr. Harris DID cross a line with his letter. While he didn't take the shameful step that Mr. George took in accusing people by name, he does make the same general mistake--where's the evidence for "local influence?" As for the Auditor's decision, "financial mess" isn't as I understand it the business of the Auditor. I have no idea whether the "proponents" asked for a meeting, nor if they did, whether the decision to decline is common, but Mr. Harris, who started strong on the fact-collection front, fails to keep it up here, resorting instead to a "leading" question to which he apparently didn't make the effort to get an answer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •