Eileen Spillane

Eileen Spillane, Rhode Island Democratic Party insider and two-time unsuccessful candidate for the Rhode Island District Twelve Senate seat, has used her campaign web site RI12.blogspot.com during the past year to disparage me and my work as the former director of the Middletown Public Library. On November 26, 2007, Eileen let loose with another one of her bizarre rants. What could have triggered the latest outburst from her? I have not worked at the Middletown library for over a year now. Is she trying to run for office again by mustering anti-public-librarian sentiment?

This time, Eileen rants about a decision in July 2007 by the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office in reaction to a complaint made in December 2006 against the Middletown Library Board of Trustees by a diverse group of citizens regarding Open Meetings and use of electronic mail.

I was not a party to the complaint, so I never saw the complaint or the evidence provided by the citizens to the AG. However, I did receive a copy of the decision. Since my name was mentioned and I was unfairly maligned, I asked for the evidence and testimony given by the Trustees and their attorney to the State that referenced me. The Attorney General's office refused to provide that information.

Since I was never contacted and my attorney was never contacted, we asked Adam Shoals of the AG Civil Affairs division who they had contacted in their investigation. According to Adam, the AG's office contacted Attorney George Rinaldi who provided testimony from some of the Library Trustees and their Attorney Dan Kinder. George was working with Dan at the same law firm. I was never contacted. My attorney was never contacted. It is my understanding that the complainants were never interviewed. And, the investigation took over seven months.

I wrote a letter to the Attorney General's office on September 12, 2007 asking that the false and misleading information about me be redacted from their decision. I have never heard back from them.

Eileen Spillane writes: Mr. Balliot had been directed by the Library Trustees's in Sept. to come up with a organizational plan to work "civilly and cooperative with the Board." Gosh, ain't that just awful. Mr. Balliot did not & asked the board's extension for the Oct. meeting until Nov.

The truth is, the Trustees all received copies my fourteen page plan at the October meeting as requested along with a nearly hour long oral report explaining the contents. The session was recorded and around thirty members of the public attended. Why would testimony be admitted from the Board that contradicted the official minutes submitted by the Board itself? In who's interest was it to deny the existence of a report that was publicly received, recorded, and witnessed by thirty people?

I am not familiar with the legal rules of investigations or testimony. But it sure seems to me, if you asked a fifth grader to find out why two groups were having a disagreement, most likely they would talk to both sides. That is fair. I was not party to the complaint and never contacted. Yet, my reputation was disparaged by the AG's office published decision of a one-sided investigation and continues to be disparaged by Democratic Party insider Eileen Spillane.

My work in Middletown was, in fact, exemplary.
Rhode Island insider politics, however, is not.