Ok, perhaps...
But first... just an observation. On page A4 of today's item you will find another unsigned editorial (is Clancy on staff?) which displays a disregard for the usefulness of archived public records. If they follow this "delete everything" method at the Item, that could very well explain why their editorial office is wrong so often. No one is saying they want to do a review of 8 years of Clancy's inbox, but you would think the past year of even 90 days would be of use. You would think it would be in the best interest of our city to have that information at the ready. You would think the Lynn newspaper would be behind that. You would be wrong on that last point.
At my company, if someone were to take over someone else's position, there would be a smooth transition and that would include sharing of important email threads. I don't have an issue with the fact that he deleted things from 7 years ago. I have an issue with him deleting ongoing issues facing our city that now the Mayor has no knowledge of and can't defend the city's position. That clearly takes the advantage away from the Mayor's office and gives it to whoever wants to "claim" they had a certain agreement / conversation with the city. It opens us up for all kinds of wasted time figuring out what is going on.
I think the Item is right on one thing. We have pressing things to deal with right away in the City of Lynn. It's a shame that it has been made all that much harder to deal with them by the childish actions of a boy named Chip.
I'm Moving on.... (although I'm still hoping for a state led investigation into that creep)
-Corey
11 comments: