On September 2, 2002 the Berkshire Eagle printed an editorial entitled “Waiting for PEER to make its case”. The editorial refers to a Web page created by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that was critical of Berkshire Community College’s handling of the soccer field construction issue. BEAT offers the following analysis of the editorial.
|
|
“The allegations by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that Berkshire Community College not only destroyed wetlands in the process of building a soccer complex…”
|
On May 24, 2001 the Berkshire Eagle printed a story entitiled “BCC fixes fields to save salamanders.” According to the Eagle story, “By changing the slope of the soccer fields and the makeup of the soil, the work altered how water will run off to the vernal pool… [BCC president Barbara] Viniar announced that the school has agreed to regrade the soccer fields in an effort to protect the vernal pool. It is hoped that by returning the fields to their original slope, the water runoff from the new fields will be identical to the old drainage, guaranteeing that the vernal pool will return each spring.” More than three years later, the college has still not kept its promise, and the vernal pool habitat has been destroyed. |
| “…but falsified data to cover it up are serious and PEER had better have them well-documented. Supporting facts are so far absent,…” | BEAT agrees that the allegations made by PEER are serious and believes that PEER has documented its charges. We wonder if the Eagle staff actually visited the PEER Web site. It is hard to imagine that anyone studying this issues could see anything other than falsified data. But we offer our Web site as further documentation of the irregularities and errors that were involved in the soccer field project. |
| “…and PEER has not accounted for the decisions of the Pittsfield Conservation Commission…” | The Pittsfield Conservation Commission’s involvement in this project began with a site visit in which agent Caleb Mitchell decided he did not even have to walk across the soccer fields to look at the vernal pool and other relevant wetland resources. Then Mr. Mitchell accepted the strangely altered map, failed to prevent the worksite from extending into endangered species habitat, failed to demand a wetland delineation for the site, and then gave the college permission to begin work.Despite ongoing investigations by state and federal regulators, and despite the fact that Berkshire Community College was being required to implement a remediation program to restore wetlands and habitat, and without waiting for these issues to be resolved, the Pittsfield Conservation Commission issued the college a Certificate of Compliance. BEAT isn’t surprised that PEER has trouble accounting for the decision of the Pittsfield Conservation Commission. We wonder how the Conservation Commission accounts for their decisions. |
| “…and the state Department of Environmental Protection to sign off on the project…” | In October of 2000, the DEP sent a letter to the college stating the Department’s concerns with work done on the soccer fields. Those concerns were not addressed by the college. Unfortunately, DEP has a policy of letting local Conservation Commissions make final determinations on projects. Although DEP did not step in and stop the soccer field project, neither did they “sign off on the project.” |
| “…unless, of course, they are in on the conspiracy.” | BEAT can find no reference to a conspiracy on PEER’s Web site. There has, however, been a failure of the public process intended to protect wetlands. |
| “The soccer project will benefit the school, city and region,…” | BEAT can understand how the Eagle would have believed that spending $169,000 to upgrade soccer fields at the college would “benefit the school, city and region”. However, we hope that now that the bill for the project has reached at least $343,100.79 and now that it is clear that this expensive project has made the fields unusable, the Eagle will reconsider its position. |
| “…and PEER’s reference in its statement to problems between outgoing BCC President Barbara Viniar and the faculty – a reference strangely out of place in an environmental report – suggests its last-minute intrusion is overkill in the campaing to sabotage Ms. Viniar.” | To suggest that PEER’s involvement in this matter is an “intrusion”, suggests that the Berkshire Eagle misunderstands the function of PEER as an organization, the tension generated on campus by the soccer field controversy, or both. PEER describes itself as “a private, non-profit organization that protects the government employees who protect our environment. PEER works with and on behalf of these resource professionals to effect change in the way government agencies conduct business.” In other words, PEER protects the environment and whistleblowers who are protecting the environment. PEER’s role in the BCC soccer field matter is therefore not an intrusion, but is instead an appropriate intervention on the side of environmental ethics and government accountability.BEAT finds the Eagle’s characterization of PEER as cynical, and believes that the Eagle’s attitude contradicts expectations raised by the Eagle’s earlier reporting (such as in “BCC fixes fields to save salamanders”). Although Barbara Viniar did agree to remediation, and was quoted in the Eagle as saying about the remediation, “I think this was the right thing to do”, the college has yet to implement the plan. PEER is involved largely because of the broken promises of the Viniar administration. |
| BEAT can understand that the Berkshire Eagle sees its role as reporting news stories and making editorial comments rather than investigating news stories, however, to suggest that there are no problems with a project simply because regulatory agencies have not stopped it, does a disservice to the community and to journalism. | |