C’mon, Jack

Friday, June 24, 2011

The Cabinet Press newspapers have always had an interesting relationship with Jack Flanagan of Brookline. A few years ago, the then-editor could count upon the occasional telephone call from Flanagan and a fairly lengthy conversation about any number of things – often his disagreement with an editorial.

We liked Jack then, we like Jack now.

But we are disappointed.

In 2009, when he was appointed to the Brookline Board of Selectmen, it was our opinion that those who appointed him were in for a shock. We believed they considered him to be a go-along-with-them kind of guy, and we thought he would be just the opposite.

It hasn’t seemed to work out that way. His defense last week of the selectmen’s actions surrounding the chief of police and his attack upon our newspapers didn’t really answer any questions. His points seemed to be that we were taking credit for getting legislative action on double-dipping and that we favored the former acting chief over the current chief.

And he wrote in last week’s Journal that we want the current chief to quit.

Well, three things:

1. As he said, legislative action on double-dipping has gone nowhere for nine years. Now it’s moving thanks, we believe, to a week-long series by The Telegraph, a series sparked by the reporting of Hattie Bernstein in The Telegraph and the Hollis Brookline Journal.

2. The sergeant who had been acting chief would have made a fine police chief, we believe, but ...

3. When the selectmen hired the current chief, we praised the hiring.

Indeed, here are some of the things we said in an editorial when the current chief was hired:

“Excellent qualifications and he lives in town? How can anyone argue with the choice of William Quigley III, a 34-year veteran of New Hampshire law enforcement, for chief of police in Brookline?

“The selectmen took nearly three months to make their choice, got excellent police work during that time from Sgt. Michael Kurland, who served as acting chief, and came up with a selection that will give the town someone with the kind of professional background that should guarantee him the kind of respect with which all police officers should be treated.”

In a strange way, Quigley is getting a raw deal here. He did nothing outside the law, but the selectmen really haven’t defended him, either. Flanagan had a great opportunity to do so in his piece in last week’s Journal, but chose a different tack, which was his option, of course.

It’s the selectmen who have made a mess, starting with their treatment of former Police Chief Thomas Goulden. In his op-ed piece last week, Flanagan could have acknowledged that, then said:

“And here’s what we intend to do about it from this point on.”

He didn’t. Perhaps because it’s easier to blame the whistle-blowers than to acknowledge the problem.