Departing acting Board of Finance chair Michael O. Peterson surprised everyone with his farewell speech at last week’s Board of Finance meeting. Here’s what he said once he departed from the usual thanks and goodbye:
"I have also seen this community suffer from a lack of political leadership. No longer do leaders put aside their differences to solve problems or unite to help the community grow. While we can all have differing opinions, we expect elected officials to put aside petty partisan differences to make our community a better place. Indeed, over the past few years, I have witnessed a litany of degrading comments, mean-spirited personal attacks by a group of people often filled with inaccurate and false facts. We have seen people who claimed to be trusted do some allegedly bad acts, which have confused and angered us all.
"We’re living in Orwellian times, where we have a governmental bureau which can spend millions of dollars to secretly investigate people based on anonymous written letters or verbal accusations. We have people who claim to be ethicists, who in writing and verbally label people liars or insinuate dishonest behavior if you dare disagree or do not follow their prescribed procedure. These could be pages out of our history books, but sadly they are not. They are happening right here today.
"North Haven stands at a crossroad. Do we move forward together to create a better community for future generations, or do we succumb to petty partisan bickering and allow these opportunities to fall by the wayside? The choice rests with each one of us."
What I found most appalling about this speech was Peterson’s attack on the Public Integrity Bureau of the Chief State’s Attorney’s office (the "governmental bureau" in the second paragraph). Does he believe that accusations of the misappropriation of public funds should be ignored by our law enforcement bodies? Should our police officers ignore the tips they get? Should they demand to have everything in writing and notarized?
It’s interesting that, according to Peterson, what the Ierardis were accused of is only “alleged,” but what he accuses me of doing ("people who claim to be ethicists" in the second sentence of the second paragraph) does not get any presumption of innocence.
He doesn’t seem to recognize that he is as much a government official as members of the Public Integrity Bureau. But he is more irresponsible, because he doesn’t even bother investigating, much less doing it secretly, before making public accusations against citizens of his town.
He considers the Public Integrity Bureau an Orwellian Big Brother, but what is he? How are his unfounded personal attacks superior to the Public Integrity Bureau’s warrant of arrest after a long investigation? Where is his documentation, whom did he interview?
Search for “lie” in this blog (the word “liar” does not appear) and you will find that I only use the term with respect to a budget full of lies, and with respect to one individual: Michael O. Peterson. Fancy that.
I do not call him a liar, but point out two very specific public lies he told. Nothing about disagreement or any “prescribed procedure.”
What is he talking about? Nothing. He’s just doing what he accuses others of: being petty and partisan and personal. And a poor leader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Regarding Carl Poto trying to influence the town attorney contract by being the largest donor to MCarty..... the perception you try to give in public is that your web site is for town information...a substitute for an inadequate town site. Sure, the blogs will have your opinion, but you represent that the information portion is factual...... Just not so...call it what it is without portraying a "holier than thou" moral fiber and you might get listened with less friction...
and fyi...get off the soapbox about anonymous authors...discusion without risk of partison personal attacks is heathy...some people are comfortable with their name in lights but not everybody is.. who says it does not define a reasonable or unreasonable comment.
Mr. Pederson needed to take advantage of his chairman position on last time with that speech.I find it odd that when Mr. Amato posed a question to the auditor he was told to address his question to the "chair" and the "chair" is who ultimately answered the question and dismissed him. However no Republicans were told to address their begnin inquiries and political policy speeches to the 'Chair"! If Mr. Amato had gone into a political endorsement speech (and make no bones about it, that what it was) the likes of which the gentleman sitting next to Mr. Donofrio did, he would have been cut short and told that this is not the forum for that and dismissed again.
I have also noted that when the minority members on the board speak on an issue, the Republicans become very unproffessional and seem to feel it is OK to shuffle papers, look at their watches,talk amongst themselves, look away into space, ect.ect. What this says to me is "your comments are only filling time cause it isn't going to matter if we come to a vote"
Petty partisan differences,what a convenient little phrase. HMMMM
In response to M. Peterson's closing statement which begins "I have also seen this community suffer from a lack of political leadership. No longer do leaders put aside their differences to solve problems or unite to help the community grow..."
It sounds like Mr. Peterson is unhappy with lack of leadership from Mr. Kopetz. Hopefully Mr Peterson has seen the light and will jump off the Republican political ship come Nov. 6th.
This quote clearly states his disapproval of the current political state of North Haven.
jumping from a sinking ship....
guess Mr Pederson doesn't want to go down with the rest of the 'alleged' criminals. I think that the 'partisan majority' on the BOF have been very busy lately covering all their tracks for the last decade. The BOF is the top of the dirt heap but NOT to be looked at too closely because they control who gets looked at? What a vile group of people that have kept a stranglehold on this town with fear and bullying. GET RID OF THEM ALL.
Ethics and Orwell
Peterson's farewell comments are those of a dangerous man. His anger was based on having to face the public, for whom he has obvious contempt. He was especially incensed by any discussion of ethical issues. The ethical issues that incensed him were not esoteric matters that are best left to pointy-headed scholars. Rather they were well-recognized principles of good government. The concept of conflict of interest was simply not on his radar screen. It was irrelevant to his thoughts and actions.
One who treats ethical issues with hostility and contempt can be regarded as immoral, amoral, or sociopathic. The labels don’t really matter. What does matter is that these are the hallmarks of a dangerous person. He not only has contempt for ethics, he seems paranoid about the possible enforcement of ethical principles. That is why Rob W was the main target of his swan song. Fear of ethics may be why he jumped ship, deciding not to seek re-election.
Mr. Peterson actually improved his performance over the last few months. I think he realized that people like myself and many others, were not going to be intimidated by him.
I agree with "Kelly" who believes he is leaving a sinking ship.
Oh Poor Mike Pederson!Booo Hooo Hooo!! If his intentions were so good, than why didn't he do one single thing to help improve all those awful political sins he spoke of instead of helping to propagate them.That little dog and pony speech was one last pathetic attempt to ride the fence in case his buddys didn't get back in. Give me a break!!!!
Post a Comment