From: craig shibley [mailto:shibley@charter.

net] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:43 AM To: Spencer, Kimberly (DPS) Cc: Torrisi, Caroline (DPS) (Dept of Public Safety’s Assistant General Counsel) Subject: Barre Follow-up Ms. Spencer: This is a follow-up to a voicemail I left with you this morning. Can you please provide me the date of the next scheduled BOCC meeting. Attached is a correspondence I’d like submitted on the record for the next BOCC meeting. Please have Chairman Torrico respond at his earliest convenience either at this email address or my home address, 151 Butterworth Road, Barre 01005. I appreciate the Committee’s anticipated cooperation in this matter. Regards, Craig Shibley December 14, 2012 Mr. Donald Torrico Building Official Certification Committee Dear Mr. Torrico: On November 15, 2012 I received a correspondence from Assistant General Counsel Caroline P. Torrisi specific to a records request. The request, the second I’ve sought from the BOCC, concerns Barre’s Inspector of Buildings George Ricker. As you know Mr. Ricker has not been properly certified since his appointment by selectmen in August 2008. More than four years have passed and now your Committee has provided him an unprecedented fifth extension in a letter dated October 9, 2012. Mr. Ricker now has until March 31, 2013 to pass both exams. In the October ’12 letter written by Kimberly Spencer the basis for this extension was twofold: 1. medical evidence; 2. “the fact you were appointed prior to regulation change that ‘… no conditional appointee shall be afforded more than three extensions’…”;

Allegedly Mr. Ricker was appointed I of B on October 10, 2006 as noted on his New Employee Report Form. However, no such records exist. Furthermore, Barre had an I o B in ’06 – and it was not Mr. Ricker. Lastly, this individual has failed the required tests at least 13 times dating back to ’06. Mr. Torrico I am asking the Committee to justify this extension based upon a doctor’s note and false data which in the end further violated your own regulations (780 CMR R7. I thank you in advance for addressing my concerns raised herein and look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Craig Shibley

From: Spencer, Kimberly (DPS) [] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 1:56 PM To: craig shibley Cc: Torrisi, Caroline (DPS) Subject: RE: Barre Follow-up Mr. Shibley, The BOCC will meet Wednesday January 9, 2013 at the Sturbridge Public Safety Building in Sturbridge, MA. This item will be on the agenda. (emphasis added) Thank you, Kim Spencer 617-826-5236

From: craig shibley [] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:25 PM To: Spencer, Kimberly (DPS) Subject: RE: Barre Follow-up Ms. Spencer, can you please provide me a summary of what transpired at today’s BOCC meeting with respect to my questions concerning Barre’s Building Inspector. Thank you.

From: Spencer, Kimberly (DPS) [] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:21 AM To: craig shibley Subject: RE: Barre Follow-up Mr. Shibley, You will receive a letter from this office. Thank you, Kim Spencer 617-826-5236

After a week of waiting for the letter (which to date has yet to come – now 10 days and counting) I forwarded a public records request seeking the BOCC’s agenda and “draft” minutes from the January 9th meeting. The Department of Public Safety’s Assistant General Counsel, Caroline Torrisi, would reply within 24 hours. My correspondence was not on the agenda as Kimberly Spencer stated.

Under “Additional Business”, though the agenda stated “None” was the matter of my correspondence. The BOCC described it as accusatory and hearsay. And if I wanted to request a hearing I could. “The BOCC is requesting counsil (sic) be present if Mr. Shibley chooses to move forward with a hearing”.

The BOCC and the Department of Public Safety’s General Counsel Office received the following reply:
FOLLOW-UP: Public Records Request Thu 1/17/2013 4:35 PM 'Lepore, Theresa (DPS)';; Ms. Spencer: I am in receipt of the public documents I requested on January 16th. Thank you. I find the Committee’s response quite premature and to refer to my concerns as hearsay simply ridiculous. Here are the facts: • In 2006 and 2007 the IoB in Barre was Harold Nichols. George Ricker was the Local Inspector. The image below is from the Town’s 2006 annual report:

In 2008 the public records show George Ricker as the Town of Barre’s IoB however the Town’s appointing authority, Selectman Richard Jankauskas, did not submit the requisite documentation until August 2009, a year later. Furthermore, he attested under pains of perjury that Mr. Ricker “meets/exceeds the qualifications for the position for which was appointed”.

The Town’s New Employee Report Form clearly shows Mr. Ricker was hired on AUGUST 8, 2008.

But the aforementioned fact aside, if he was a conditional appointment prior to January 1, 2008 (which he was not) then why did the BOCC in a letter dated April 15, 2011 express the following:

(It should be noted, Outsiders, that Robert Anderson is still the Department of Public Safety’s Adminsitrator)

In fact, Ms. Spencer the BOCC would eventually deny Mr. Ricker a fourth extension on September 7, 2011.

In my correspondence dated December 14, 2012 I asked the Committee to justify the recent extension. There’s no evidence in the minutes to suggest this happened. Rather, my concerns were summarily dismissed and described as hearsay and accusatory. I’ve provided you facts which raise serious questions as to how the BOCC – and you – are handling this matter. Yet, the BOCC has provided me nothing to prove my concerns are unwarranted. As a result of this apparent impasse please consider this a follow-up PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST pursuant to the Commonwealth’s Public Records Law: • Provide a copy of all documents in Mr. Ricker’s file related to and confirming his appointment as Inspector of Buildings for the Town of Barre on or around October 10, 2006.

Lastly, Ms. Spencer I do not appreciate be (sic) lied to by a public servant. In an email to me dated December 14th you wrote the following, “This item will be on the agenda”. It was not. This is not hearsay; I have the email archived like you. I appreciate your anticipated cooperation in this matter. There would be no 24-hr reply this time . . .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful