Cracks in the Alliance.
By Jim Conley • Jan 9th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Remember back in October when I objected (see previous post) to a mailing from the Brookline Greenspace Alliance in advance on the local referendum question on a 3% tax surcharge to fund community preservation in Brookline.
Remember that?
At the time the Alliance’s Executive Director Ed Hsieh told me:
“Regarding your concern about our article in our publication PLACE in support of Question 4, as a 501(c)(3) we are not allowed to support a given political candidate, but the law allows us to support legislation related to our mission within given limits. We have remained within those constraints of the law.”
That answered only part of my concern, as it was evident that the Alliance was looking to influence the vote by sending a mailing to people outside their membership. And that the Alliance should have disclosed those campaign expenses to the Town Clerk.
And the agency that enforces campaign finance laws agrees.
In an opinion (click here to view the letter from OCPF) sent to me over the weekend, and based on my complaint to them, the OCPF says that because the Alliance sent an additional 500 copies of the mailer to non-members:
“The (Alliance) did not comply with Section 22 by failing to file form CPF M22 thirty days after the election with the Town Clerk.”
These are the same people who - along with Brookline PAX and a town manager - led a virtual lynch mob (see column) when former Selectman Michael Sher wanted to investigate the goings-on in the Alliance’s fiefdom of Brookline Public Works Department.
There’s always a concern when a so-called advocacy group thinks the end justifies the means. It makes you wonder what the real agenda is.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Bumpersticker suggestion:
SAINTS PRESERVE US FROM BROOKLINE PRESERVATIONISTS!
I suppose the Brookline Greenbacks Alliance will be organized to support Prop. 2.5.