Monday, September 23

Chief Bucknell Firing

In one vote the BoS have eliminated the need for a special town meeting. Tonight in a 3/0 vote, which was motioned by Charlie and enthusiastically seconded by Mary;-? the BoS fired Reena Bucknell. Now there is no need to ask the town for 43k to fund their interim chief of police fiasco. See it for yourself.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGr--3Q_1KM

17 comments:

  1. Hard to watch a video if it's labeled private.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right. There's nothing to see.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. I hope Reena sues the pants off this board for this fiasco. From the beginning the rules didn't apply to the Selectmen. After the February "vote of no confidence" to fire someone without due process is a violation of due process and the law. Shame on them. This could have been handled differently if it weren't for private agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, my bad. I'm still getting used to this YouTube thing. Problem fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Charlie Flynn for having the guts to do the right thing. Let Reena sue, the town has a strong case given Reena's non-feasance, and the Pomeroy report, and the conclusion by the police chief's organization advice that she should/could be fired. I strongly suspect she wont sue. Will she want to pony up legal fees for a weak case? Will her attorney take this on a contingency basis? Most probably no and no. In any case by stopping her salary we are saving money that might be needed for legal costs. But most important, we are clearing the way to have the P.D. find a new chief sooner.

    I could not understand this allegiance to Reena, a failed chief whose re-instatement would have been a folly and a further tilt towards dysfunction.

    Time to move forward, not to pull scabs off old wounds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kevin, I think you need to either find a new dictionary or rethink your inclinations towards hyperbole. Mary's seconding of this motion was not what one could remotely consider "enthusiastic", and you choosing to label it as such only emphasizes your personal bias towards the situation.

    Frankly, it would be nice if this vote does indeed take away the need for a special town meeting, because this situation has gone on for too long. Reena Bucknell has done some good things in this town, but even a person who has done good work in the past and who may have had good intentions at some point can screw up--and screw up beyond the point where they should not have to face the consequences of their actions. In my opinion, this is a case of "job burnout" gone bad--a police officer who should have retired but chose not to, and as a result of that choice made some very poor decisions. Yes, her original removal from office should have been handled better, but at this point, she has done no favors for herself or the town in bringing this to a better conclusion. It is time to end this so she and the town can move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you really want to see tongue in cheek look at the state of the art composting facility piece. I agree people who have screwed up need to be dealt with even if they have done many good things for the town. Now by the same token, what should we do with a man who lost hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars by not billing water customers? I think they gave him higher pay to do less work. So I guess I am biased!

      Delete
  7. So many people have misinformation and operate on rumors. Clearly the truth will come out- after all, Charlie F. and his band of brothers (aka TC) know everything!! Sad state of affairs for people who live and work in Egremont-- count your money. Where is the Town legal advisor---in the dark? 1055am Anonymous: it smells like you've been there. Lose did you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. And what about Mary Brazie's adament statement that there was never a break in at the evidence room in the PD? We now know that was a lie – one of many!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, TC is Tom Curnin, who hands Charlie notes during meetings to give him direction and comments. Tom Curnin is a part-time 2nd home owner with little knowledge of the community. He sued the Town for the right to speak at Town Meeting and lost. That's the reference.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey, couple of questions: what ever happened to that Palone character? Why did he get " fired " ? Wasn't that in June? Brazie emphatically stated " there never was a break into the evidence." Who is she kidding or better yet, protecting? Why hasn't the truth come out about all these characters? We need to outsource -not much happens here anyway.We would save a lot of embarrassment and money. Looks like the termination was a set-up. What is Flynn afraid of--the truth about what they have botched? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. just out of curiosity and nothing against Brian Shaw. But why if Stockbirdge and Lee got 57+ applicants for chief wouldn't Egremont at least want to open up the position rather than give it out. Also wasnt it originally not supposed to ever go to the interm. I thought they made that clear during the interviews

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they made that perfectly clear and all agreed. Welcome to Egremont.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I also find it funny that the so-called board selects the only candidate that has absolutely no leadership or command experience. Coincidentally, he is the only one with personal ties to a certain member of the select board. The good 'ole boy network is alive and well my friends. So much for the best and most qualified candidate.

      Delete
  12. Try denying an evidence break now. Good luck with your future cover-ups Brian and Mary.

    http://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/ci_24362766/attorneys-seek-dismissal-teens-rsquo-drug-charges-amid?IADID=Search-www.berkshireeagle.com-www.berkshireeagle.com

    ReplyDelete