It has been the subject of coffee shop discussions, telephone conversations and who knows how many blogs.
The leak of executive session material concerning the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Southbridge spawned an investigation and raised questions of media ethics and the responsibility of town officials. It led to finger pointing and accusations.

It resulted in a report completed in November last year by State Police Lt. Thomas Zona and delivered last month by the Worcester County District Attorney’s office to Southbridge Police Chief Danielle Charette – a document labeled “confidential” in which Zona concluded, “… the target of this investigation will remain unknown without someone coming forward or confessing they released the information to the newspapers.”

Zona didn’t just play investigator in his report; he also offered up some advice to town councilors, serving up a scolding in the last paragraph of the report that seemed to go beyond his charge. He talked of dissension among councilors and suggested a “code of ethics that members should follow to preserve the integrity of the Town Council.”

In short, Zona’s report read like the words of an investigator frustrated by his inability to identify just who turned to the media with the documents – a failure that stemmed from the refusal of those reporters and editors with whom he spoke to reveal their sources, a fact he seemed to refer to with some sarcasm when he wrote: “The newspapers have refused to cooperate in this investigation by declining to identify this subject in order to protect their ‘sources.’”

As a result of that, Zona continued, “it was determined that the guidelines for pursuit of other investigatory measures would be impermissible at this time.”

In layman’s terms: The cops have finished their part in what, from the beginning, was a misguided attempt to blame someone for doing something other members of the Town Council – past and present – have done whenever the purpose suited them. Newspapers and town officials have for years turned to one another as allies, sometimes enemies. Sometimes there’s information an official wants to make public without being identified. The practice of most reputable news organizations in such an instance is to provide anonymity and protection of the source. It’s an offer made with the understanding that, at some point, the news outlet may be approached and asked to reveal its source. It’s an offer that should be made with the full commitment to protecting the individual(s), even if it means you end up in jail.

There are exceptions: If, for example, I as an editor determined someone’s life or reputation could be seriously jeopardized by refusal to name a source, I may opt to identify the individual. In most other cases, however, I would ask the individual whether he or she would voluntarily identify themselves.

That is what I did in this case. The source refused and I relayed that information to Zona, who had called me several times and even offered to meet for drinks. He was doing his job, but so was I. If either I or Ryan Grannan-Doll revealed our source, we would have compromised our jobs and damaged our professional reputations. While some officials would have offered public applause, most would secretly make note never to deal with either of us ever again.

The biggest problem with this investigation is that it centered on an issue that never should have gone behind closed doors in the first place. Discussion of the Registry of Motor Vehicles - from the moment the state shut the doors on the former office on West Main Street in the Big Bunny Plaza to the very public hearing in which Registrar Rachel Kaprielian outright lied to the public about State Police signing off on a safety report on the new location of the RMV in the Mass Pike plaza in Charlton – was conducted in the public eye. Anyone paying attention – heck, anyone who had breakfast in the local diners – knew about the state pulling out of a lease with plaza owners. They knew about the town fighting to get the RMV back in town, about the Kaprielian holding out for a sweetheart deal and about the state eyeing the Senior Center on Larochelle Way.

Absolutely nothing about this entire issue was private, which made the decision to go into executive session to discuss the “negotiation of a lease” completely bogus. Also bogus was the participation of state Rep. Geraldo Alicea, who was invited by Town Manager Christopher Clark. When asked why, Clark said he thought Alicea could help as a negotiator with the RMV, since he was a state official.

One of the first questions I had as then executive editor with Stonebridge Press Newspapers was: Since when do our elected state officials serve as negotiators for state agencies in the purchase of buildings and property?

The larger issue was that officials chose to go behind closed doors. When one of our reporters, Ryan Grannan-Doll, was refused entry, he called me over. I, too, was shut out.

Later, I decided to file an Open Meeting violation with the District Attorney and an ethics violation with the state Ethics Commission. The latter complaint concerned Alicea’s participation in the meeting. The Open Meeting complaint ultimately was referred to the DA’s office in Springfield because – surprise, surprise – Alicea’s wife happened to be an employee with the Worcester DA. The complaint was ultimately shot down, a decision with which I disagree to this day. The ethics complaint apparently went nowhere.  A spokesperson with the Ethics Commission said the matter had been resolved, but that the substance of said resolution would not be revealed – which basically means they did nothing.

From the instant my reporter came to me with the Executive Session documents in question, whether to identify the source was never a question. When Zona first called and asked to meet with the two of us at his office, I agreed because it was not my intent to be an obstruction. I felt we could share our involvement with this issue and our reasons for maintaining silence on the source of the material. After thinking more about it, I felt this particular instance was important enough to obtain input from our publisher and, if needed, our attorney. I was told not to attend a meeting, so I called Zona and politely declined.

I feel comfortable enough at this point in time letting folks know I was blindsided and deeply hurt by comments made by my publisher during a subsequent voicemail intended for our Chief Financial Officer but left on my phone, in which he said, in part, “If Walter had handled this it would have been a mess.”

I wholeheartedly believe if we were to have revealed our source, even for something some might consider, on the grand scale of things, inconsequential, it would have led to a larger “mess.” I believe it would have damaged the reputation of all our newspapers and jeopardized the ability of our reporters, in the future, to secure trusted and valuable relationships with sources.

Some have accused me of applying a double standard, by writing in past editorials that we expect full accountability from our public officials and then turning around and not holding our source accountable. It is certainly not a black and white issue; not one that can be explained too simply. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that we do expect accountability. Sometimes, in order to make sure you get that, you need someone’s help. In this case, a particular councilor provided executive session material I deemed suitable for public consumption based on previous media coverage of the issue. The intent was absolutely to ensure accountability. Protecting the source’s identity, I believe, was not a blow to accountability, but in fact critical to that mission.

A whole new debate, I understand, has erupted over whether the lieutenant’s report should have been labeled confidential. Obviously, it has found its way into the public arena. Since it would run counter to my original position, I certainly believe it should be released. Like others, I too question who stamped the report confidential and why, since this wasn’t even a criminal matter to being with and since it was prompted by a public official, in this case the Town Council chairman.

It would be my hope that this matter be put to rest. There is much serious business to be done in Southbridge. The release of Executive Session material did not, to the best of my knowledge, harm anyone or damage any reputations. The subsequent blame games, however, did. It was never my intent to be devious or impede an investigation. I may no longer be employed as a journalist, but that is what I am. It’s what I’ve always been, even before I got paid as one. I hope, sooner than later, to be one again. If and when that happens, I can step confidently into my next role knowing I held up the standards and virtues of good journalistic practices.

I chose to write about this matter because, even though I continue to protect our source, I felt the people of Southbridge might be interested in hearing another side of the issue.