Author: Mike Pesarchick/ Buffalo News
Niagara County District Attorney Michael J. Violante may have had good reason -- or not -- for some of the controversial actions he has taken in the 31 months since he took office, but don't expect him to explain them to the media or the voters who elected him. His silence is deafening.
Violante seems to have adopted a 'need-to-know' policy that, in his mind, excludes the public from knowing just about anything and everything when it comes to decisions he makes in criminal cases.
The district attorney, who is up for re-election next year, might want to reconsider his non-informative stance. That, or figure on putting to better use whatever money he raised from his recent $100-a-ticket political fundraiser. Dog-catcher comes to mind, as long as he promises not to abuse his political connections.
Those connections have woven an incestuous web around his office, raising questions about several prosecutorial decisions. When reporters ask about them, his typical retort is, 'I'm not going to talk about that.' Then he turns on his heels.
Don't like the media? That's fine. He wouldn't be the only one with distaste for journalists. But, as pointed out by County Legislature Minority Leader Dennis F. Virtuoso,
The negative attitude Violante has taken toward both the media and the public has shown up in a variety of instances in which he refused to explain his actions. They include the dropping of child endangerment charges against two
That brings us to the case of Sara E. Donovan, the 23-year-old daughter of North Tonawanda Alderwoman Nancy A. Donovan. The younger Donovan's good fortune was to be charged with drunken driving in a county where she could snag a plea bargain to a speeding and parking ticket -- possibly an unparalleled reduction of charges and, to this point, an unexplained one.
Numerous letters to the editor have pointed out the glaringly obvious political connections: the presence of a
To be clear, it's not as though Violante is always silent. He's been plenty willing to talk in situations that benefit him directly and are apt to show his office in a positive light.
He may think that's enough, but voters -- the people who are paying his salary -- shouldn't. He owes them explanations and they should be insistent in demanding them.
