The Sun's Yellow Journalism Intensifies
Yellow Journalism is the practice of presenting biased opinion as objective reporting. Usually its purpose is
to further an agenda, such as smearing a person or group, and to create controversy. Often, the bias is there
to protect or further the interest of friends such as public officials who feed the paper stories and must be
nurtured as allies.
The Lowell Sun has descended further and further down the trail For months, Savard has been cleverly
of yellow journalism as the 9 North Road scandal has unfolded. quoting officials who state incorrectly
The Sun’s editors are furious with me for calling out their that investigations have cleared the
assigned Chelmsford reporter Rita Savard for her longstanding principals in the 9 North Road
bias, unprofessional conduct and unethical practices writing her scandal, that a Land Court judge has
articles to create “controversy” about facts and favor the ruled that the construction there is
Eliopoulos oligarchy. If I tell her something in her story line is perfectly legal, and so on.
untrue, then she gets a town official or proxy to state the
falsehood so she can quote them and get the falsehood in there without personally being liable. For months,
Savard has been cleverly quoting officials who state incorrectly that investigations have cleared the
principals in the 9 North Road scandal, that a Land Court judge has ruled that the construction there is
perfectly legal, and so on. Recently, Ms. Savard has written multiple times that Phil Eliopoulos is suing me,
when in fact Phil has simply countersued to get my lawsuit against him dismissed, and has been blocking
depositions. If you’re suing someone, you don’t try to get the lawsuit dismissed, and you try to take
depositions, not block them. Savard knows all this, but slants her statements anyway.
If she doesn’t like my comments, she has written that I was “not available for comment.” As I now insist on
commenting to a real journalist rather than the unprofessional Ms. Savard, I am listed in the Sun’s stories as
“refusing to comment.” If I debunk a town official, as I debunked Paul Cohen using his own written
statements when he was trying to claim he was not pro-development, the story has simply been nuked so
the embarrassing contradiction doesn’t make it into print. If she doesn’t like the facts that I point out are
central to an issue, she simply leaves them out. If I point out that new statements by Paul Cohen contradict
previous statements, she refuses to inform the reader by juxtaposing them, claiming that the older
statements have already been published before, so there’s no reason to reprint them in the current context.
So the Sun’s editors decided to pen a public personal attack editorial that is a string of lies so ridiculous I
am compelled to respond and show how inanely obvious they are in their yellow journalistic hatchet job.
Community disorganizer
The Lowell Sun
Posted: 06/29/2011 07:00:37 AM EDT
There are 34 days left until Aug. 2, when Chelmsford voters head to the polls to decide a special recall
election, the result of a petition initiated by resident Roland Van Liew.
Unless residents have been living in a cloistered home for the past three years, they'd be hard-pressed not to
know Van Liew's name and personal drive to push from office four members of the Board of Selectmen in
a single recall vote.
Van Liew alleges that Chelmsford's municipal government – appointed and elected officials – are rotten to
the core in their thoughts, words, deeds and service to the town.
Unlike several vocal officials and the Lowell Sun Editors, I Chelmsford’s top officials have been
have never professed to know what other people are thinking. dishonest with us repeatedly, and
I’ve always dealt with what they’ve said and done. (On the refuse to uphold the law or even obey
other hand, several officials have claimed to know that I have a the law on our behalf; how “rotten”
hidden agenda or simply enjoy making trouble.) It’s true that that makes them is for each individual
their service to the town has not been productive; many to decide, in my view. unnecessary problems have been created and unnecessary
conflict initiated by Town Manager Paul Cohen alone. But I’m not sure where the “rotten to the core”
reference comes from. Chelmsford’s top officials have been dishonest with us repeatedly, and refuse to
uphold the law or even obey the law on our behalf; how “rotten” that makes them is for each individual to
decide, in my view. I have never even said they are “bad” people; just that they do not act in our interest or
in accordance with the law.
Such full-fledged corruption, if it were true, would put Chelmsford on the FBI's most-wanted list instead of
Money magazine's survey of best places to live in America, a coveted designation it received in 2007.
Not true. The FBI, as well as the U.S. Attorney, views the sort of endemic graft that’s going on as a matter
for state and local authorities to remedy. The Sun editorial staff has already been presented with the U.S.
Attorney’s letter stating this. The state authorities (the Attorney General’s Office and the state Ethics
Commission) have claimed (inappropriately in my view) that they “lack jurisdiction” to investigate certain
of the violations. That leaves it up to local authorities to investigate and remedy the lawbreaking. They
refuse to do so. That’s why they’re up for recall. Residents have no other recourse.
Van Liew makes his allegations without prosecutable evidence. (None of the four selectmen have been
charged with any wrongdoing by any law-enforcement agency in Massachusetts.) Still, Van Liew persists
in telling The Sun, The Boston Globe and anyone who will listen or read his fliers and web messages that
he has been crusading for years in town against "corruption, graft and cronyism."
Not true. There is plenty of prosecutable evidence. Again (sound like a broken record, but the Sun Editors
appear to be slow learners) the state authorities (the Attorney General’s Office and the state Ethics
Commission) have claimed that they “lack jurisdiction” to investigate certain of the violations. That leaves
it up to local authorities to investigate and remedy the lawbreaking. They refuse to do so.
Many of the violations have been the subject of legal action and are most definitely prosecutable, but the
bad guys have been able to fend off the lawsuits to this point through their favorite technicality: moving to
deny “standing” to whoever is bringing the lawsuit. This has nothing to do with whether there is
prosecutable evidence, as the Sun Editors disingenuously claim. They know this, because they’ve been
presented with the evidence (including those e-mails showing Phil Eliopoulos negotiated directly with
Eastern Bank while he was a sitting selectman) but I guess it’s expedient for them to pretend they don’t.
Dick McClure has a lawsuit currently open against multiple town boards and officials, and the issue of
“standing” is what has been holding up the case – not any lack of credible evidence or lack of reasonable
cause to move forward with investigation. The judge has yet to rule on whether Mr. McClure will be
granted “standing.”
I should point out that some graft is perfectly legal, but it is still graft. However, the purchase of the land
called "9 North Road" and the subsequent construction is most certainly not legal.
It's truly a remarkable story when you think of it.
A savvy computer-software company owner, Van Liew has succeeded in planting seeds of doubt and
division among this community of 33,000, winning over dozens of disciples.
Jim Campanini used this very language in my meeting with the Sun editorial board a few weeks ago. I
pointed out to him that I am not a prophet and he should not refer to proponents of good and honest
government as “disciples” but rather as civic-minded residents. Apparently this went in one ear and out the
other.
There is an element of fanaticism in the irrational vitriol of sycophants like Tom Gilroy, Jeff Apostalakes,
Maria Karafelis et al. But you don’t see that sort of vicious animosity on the side of people demanding
good and honest government.
The rallying cry is the 9 North Road project, a juicy tale because it involves the purchase of a piece of
private land near a public common. According to Van Liew, town officials were in cahoots with the
Eliopoulos family, which includes former Selectman Philip Eliopoulos, to acquire the land and smooth the
way for the owners to circumvent a murky deed restriction limiting what could be built on the property.
The deed restrictions aren’t murky. The Sun editors and the selectmen have chosen to focus on a single
stipulation – the maximum limit of 55% of land area for total square footage of construction and parking –
as though it takes some sort of precedence over the other stipulations (such as that the land remain an open
space conservation area). They’ve given it de facto precedence because it’s all they ever talk about. They’re
not willing to talk about the other stipulations – such as the “open space/conservation area” requirement,
that any construction must “resemble the original outbuildings,” be “small” and “barn-like,” etc. because
they’re clearly being violated.
Much more importantly, it’s very clear that the deal to acquire the land was negotiated in violation
of state law, with multiple officials looking the other way. The land deal should be investigated and
struck down, and the construction torn down to return to the residents the park and conservation
area that they were promised “in perpetuity” when then-officials sold off the larger parcel for partial
development in 1978. The Sun editors – and reporter Rita Savard – join the selectmen in refusing to
acknowledge this simple fact.
A state land court judge last year denied an injunction to halt construction.
Yet Van Liew's conspiracy accusations have continued to put the town on the defensive for something that,
while imperfectly done, was done legally nonetheless.
Not true. The land deal was not legal. First Phil Eliopoulos denied he was involved while he was a
selectman in the sale of the land to his father. The refusal of the media to present the facts forced me to
spend my own money to mail the proof that he was lying directly to Chelmsford residents. Now Eliopoulos
– and the current selectmen parroting him – is claiming that, although he was directly involved, that it was
perfectly “legal.” No it’s not, folks. Both state and local ethics laws prohibit such dealings. So why not
bring it into court and get it adjudicated? Because everyone knows the Eliopouloses would lose. Town
officials, including Eliopoulos appointee Paul Cohen and fellow real estate lawyers Paul Haverson and Jon
Kurland, have done everything they can to keep the McClure lawsuit from moving ahead and getting
justice served.
In 2009, Van Liew targeted Town Manager Paul Cohen in his first recall attempt, an effort that was invalid
under the Town Charter. A year later, Van Liew targeted two Planning Board members in a second recall
effort. When that failed, he turned his sights on the four selectmen – George Dixon, Matt Hanson, Pat
Wojtas and Jon Kurland – in a third recall campaign to be decided Aug. 2.
Not true. I never targeted Paul Cohen for recall. In fact, I
expressed my opinion that it was not the right step to the
people who did initiate the action, but it was not my call to
make. The Sun’s editors won’t publish the hard facts of the
9 North Road scandal but are pleased to publish unsubstantiated hearsay like the above.
I have always understood that our
incompetent and corrupt town manager
serves at the pleasure of the selectmen.
I have always understood that our incompetent and corrupt town manager serves at the pleasure of the
selectmen. I have expressed my concern, with specific examples, to his bosses regarding his intellectual
dishonesty, his demonstrable incompetence, his multiple serious abuses of authority, his penchant for
creating needless conflict, his multiple breaches of fiduciary duty to the people he is supposed to serve, and
his support for destabilizing growth policies. In short, I pointed out that disasters like the 9 North Road
scandal would be inevitable with him as the top official of the town. It doesn’t make me happy that I was
right, but it does make me resolute in trying to rectify the situation and obtain a competent, honest town
manager to run our community.
Van Liew says his intention is to clean up government. That's a noble goal. But where is the malfeasance or
impropriety that warrants such an extreme measure as a recall election? We don't see it. What we do see,
however, is a personal vendetta directed at specific people who make up government.
I have no “blood feud” (vendetta) with anyone. The Lowell Sun editors can pretend not to notice the
perpetual personal vitriol on the part of officials and ex-officials like Bill Dalton and his daughter
Stephanie Bush (who is chairing the “Choose Chelmsford” group), Jon Kurland, Phil Stanway, Colleen
Stansfield, Fran McDougall, Glen Thoren, Roy Earley and others who have elevated their personal smear
campaigns to the level of irrational hatred. And of course the Lowell Sun editors pretend not to notice that
their Chairman, Kendall Wallace, is good buddies with Michael Eliopoulos. When it was most important to
rebut the factual information that was being disseminated about the 9 North Road scandal prior to the BOS
hearing last August, Wallace published Phil Eliopoulos’ litany of lies about his family’s development as an
“Open Letter to Residents” without rebuttal. Wallace even penned an editorial stating that the factual
information I was publicizing “borders on slander.” Eliopoulos publicly stated last year that such
informational mailings “shouldn’t be tolerated,” and the Sun’s editorial board appears to agree. Time and
further investigation has shown that every allegation is well substantiated and every assertion in Phil
Eliopoulos’ list of “facts” is demonstrably false. Yet Wallace and the Lowell Sun have refused to publish
any retraction or rebuttal. Apparently only folks named Eliopoulos can get their “facts” published regarding
9 North Road – even if they are false.
Voters should be wary that Van Liew offers nothing in alternatives or solutions if the recall is successful.
He has stated that he won't run for office, so don't count on him to be part of change – just to make it
happen.
The alternative is good and honest government, steered by
common sense. That’s not “nothing.” Unfortunately, we’re
never going to get that with the current selectmen or the current
Town Manager. I have been part of many good changes to the
brutally poor choices made by the current officials, particularly
the Town Manager.
The
Town
Manager
blew
an
opportunity to obtain the new DPW
building for peanuts, instead allowing
a third party to buy it for $1 (One
Dollar) and then insisting that the
town should pay $3.1 million for it just
a year later.
The Town Manager blew an opportunity to obtain the new
DPW building for peanuts, instead allowing a third party to buy it for $1 (One Dollar) and then insisting
that the town should pay $3.1 million for it just a year later. I and many others objected, and despite the
Town Manager’s assertion that “the price will only go up” voters only approved the purchase once the price
was settled at $2.1 million. This “divisiveness” saved the town over a million dollars.
The Center Fire Station issue is another example. Now that they are under recall, the selectmen have had an
attack of common sense and the perfectly good fire station south of the center will reopen. This provides
better coverage than the ball field boondoggle proposal, more employment of firefighters, and at a lower
cost. It’s another example of “divisiveness” forcing town officials to do the right thing, even if reluctantly
and belatedly.
I do get tired of having to work so hard just to have common sense prevail, however. I’m sure you do too. I
am tired of the needless conflict created by Paul Cohen over the town’s towing contract. I’m tired of the
politicization of the fire department and the police department. I’m tired of the abuses of authority. I’m
tired of the graft. And I sure am tired of all the lies.
Honesty and accountability for malfeasance are real solutions to many of the issues our community
struggles with. The current selectmen refuse to support these simple notions. They have to go.
Van Liew has refused to participate in a public forum with others or by himself to answer direct questions
posed by The Sun. He has deflected and rejected all attempts to debate those officials to whom he has so
ardently accused of wrongdoing.
Not true. In fact, this is a particularly big lie on the part of the Lowell Sun editors who penned this
hatchet piece. They know that I will appear in a venue that is informational and neutral, with equal
representation for critics of corruption. No one has been willing to set up such a situation. When the
pro-recall people try to set up fair debates, one-on-one or two-on-two or three-on-three, the proEliopoulos camp runs for the hills.
The Sun’s editors know from our meeting weeks ago, where I personally explained to them that I will
not appear in venues where officials can lie at will without adequate rebuttal – such as TV shows,
which are inherently time limited and prone to innuendo over fact. For instance, Jon Kurland
appeared on Dennis Ready’s “talk show” and, facilitated by Ready, told over 20 discrete lies in 23
minutes. That’s got to be a new record. It’s just not possible to rebut such drivel in the time allotted;
any appearance by me or other opponent would simply serve to validate the appropriateness of
debating the facts. This I will not do.
What I have made clear to the Sun editors is that I will appear in a fair and balanced forum or
debate. Below is part of the letter I sent to the “Choose Chelmsford” chairs who wanted me to
participate on a stacked panel, and which the Lowell Sun Editors are fully aware of.
I have explained to the editorial board at the Lowell Sun that the reason I will not participate
on a stacked panel like this is because the town officials you try to place on these panels have
already shown they are willing, in fact eager, to lie and I cannot possibly respond to all the
misinformation individually. Furthermore, a stacked panel like this makes it easy to generate
yet more biased coverage from Rita Savard focusing on me as the issue rather than the five
public officials who have all refused to uphold the law and act in the best interest of their
constituents. I will not validate your sophist attempt to manipulate the public discourse by
acting as your straw man.
I would be happy to participate in a balanced panel consisting of, say, Phil Eliopoulos, Paul
Cohen, Jon Kurland, myself, Dick McClure, and Spencer Kimball. That would provide a
great deal of insider knowledge, legal acumen, and targets of criticism on both sides of the
issues surrounding both the recall and the 9 North Road scandal.
But neither you nor the Lowell Sun have ever proposed such a panel. I am reminded of Tom
Christiano extending a similar “invitation” on his cable TV discussion show. After hosting an
entire show with four panelists who were all opposed to the recall and politically hostile to
Better Not Bigger’s goal of good and honest government, he turned to the camera and said –
without a trace of irony – “Roland, I’d like you to appear on my show. As long as there are
other people presenting the opposing view, so we can have a good, healthy debate.”
Van Liew is a wealthy businessman and a formidable politician. He has spent $90,000 so far to bankroll his
recall campaign, and he'll likely go over $100,000 before it's over. Van Liew knows what he wants and he's
determined to get it, even if it means buying a special election.
This is the first true statement in the editorial, but not in the sense that the editors meant it. I do know that I
want good and honest government, and I am indeed determined to get it.
The draconian recall bylaw process requires substantial financial resources in order to meet the time
constraints, so only those who pay can play. Nevertheless, the sacrifice was made and all of the residents
will have the right to vote on August 2.
We didn’t get to vote on the purchase of the land or permitting for 9 North Road; we didn’t
get to vote on whether to renew the contract of the corrupt Town Manager who facilitated the
whole process for the Eliopouloses; we didn’t get to vote on the enforcement of the
Preservation Restriction. But we will all get to vote whether to recall the town officials who
have refused to act in our best interest and in the interest of the community’s future quality of
life.
Is Chelmsford for sale? Van Liew says it is, and it's ironic how he's out to prove it.
What the Sun has done for months is cleverly make me the center of the story rather than the officials who
have repeatedly committed malfeasance. But I’m not the one building on what is supposed to be Center
Park. I’m not the one who has committed multiple ethics violations. I’m not the one blocking formal
inquiry.
The Sun has printed half a dozen times, over and over, the amounts that I have spent on enabling people to
vote as though it’s a nefarious activity. Where is their calculation of the amounts spent by the Eliopoulos
clan on currying political influence? It strikes me as odd that I just can’t find that anywhere.
I am out to prove that Chelmsford has been for sale, and I think that we’ve come a long way in
demonstrating that the Eliopoulos clan has induced many officials to sell us out on the cheap in return for
political power, political favors, business deals, and even direct cash contributions. This is only possible
due to the very hard work of many researchers, some paid but most work has been pro bono. The web of
real estate lawyers, developers and connected realtors who work assiduously to convince officials to sell
out the interests of the many to benefit the few, is extensive. Admittedly, it takes a certain toughness to
resist their constant lobbying. But I think we have enough such people in a town the size of Chelmsford to
do much better than officials who lie and cover up malfeasance as a matter of routine.
Unlike the Sun’s editors, I think that it is a laudable effort to organize people around the concept of good
and honest government, and an improved quality of life for all residents. The Lowell Sun has intractably
refused to print that simple statement of purpose, and then claims that I have “no positive plan.”
I think residents, unlike the Sun’s editors, understand that good and honest government, with accountability
for malfeasance, is a very positive plan. If the Sun's editors view that as a threat to democracy, so be it.
Yours with best wishes and hope for the future of our town,