DA BATTLES EASING OF DRUG SENTENCES

SPRINGFIELD — Hampden County District Attorney William M. Bennett has
stepped up efforts to battle a Nov. 7 ballot question that would let more
drug offenders get treatment instead of jail.

As a result, supporters of Question 8 accuse him of waging a political
campaign on the job.

Bennett met with the Union-News editorial board and conducted a press
conference yesterday with the police chiefs of Palmer, Ludlow, Wilbraham,
Hampden, and Monson to warn that Question 8's passage would boost the
Western Massachusetts drug trade.

"Drug dealers are not going to be afraid of getting caught," Bennett said,
adding that dealers traveling northeastern highways will focus more on
Springfield if Question 8 becomes law. "They'll say, 'Why try Hartford if we
know we're not going to get punished for drug dealing in Massachusetts?'" he
said.

Question 8 would create the option of drug treatment instead of prosecution
for people charged with trafficking 14 to 28 grams of cocaine, and those
charged with first and second offenses of illegal drug distribution. People
who successfully complete treatment programs would have no recorded drug
conviction.

The Coalition for Fair Treatment, which backs Question 8, has said that the
proposed law would not apply to major drug dealers or hardened criminals.

Bennett, who is president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys
Association, attacked Question 8 on several points during the editorial
board meeting. He said that 28 grams of cocaine is substantial — equal to
100 packets and worth about $2,000 on the street — and that the trafficking
of it should not be treated lightly.

"That's not an insignificant amount at all," he said.

Bennett and the state's 10 other district attorneys filed a lawsuit to pull
the question off the ballot, but their objections were rejected by the
Supreme Judicial Court.

The coalition has asked the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance
to investigate the "failure" of district attorneys to file finance reports
on efforts to quash Question 8. The coalition claims that the district
attorneys are violating the campaign finance law, which prohibits the use of
public resources to advocate political positions.

Alan F. Gordon, a coalition spokesman, called yesterday's press conference a
"fairly blatant and outrageous" violation.

Denis J. Kennedy, public relations director for the state campaign finance
office, said it is legal for government officials to speak out on Question
8.

"We, over the years, have said it's permissible for public officials to
speak and use public resources concerning ballot questions within their area
of responsibility," he said.

He said that public officials may not wage campaigns with public resources,
and acknowledged that distinguishing between "speaking out" from
"campaigning" is not always easy.

Bennett called it his duty to fight the proposed law.

"I have an obligation to go out and inform people about Question 8," he
said, adding that his office has not spent money or devoted staff to the
measure, although staffers may be devoting their own time to fighting it.

Question 8 would alter the fate of money and property seized during drug
raids. The money now goes to district attorneys' offices and police
departments for law enforcement purposes, but under Question 8 it would be
shifted into a drug treatment trust fund.

The Union-News has attempted before to get data on how much Bennett's office
collects in seized assets, but numbers were provided for the first time
yesterday.

From 1996 to this year, the office collected an average $341,274 annually in
seized drug money, Bennett said, although this year's anticipated amount is
$266,796. The office has an annual budget of about $6 million.

Bennett provided a summary of how seized funds are spent, including $106,878
this year in payments to cities and towns, $50,458 for "confidential
investigations," and $47,744 for clerks and interns on a drug task force,
among other items.

Bennett said that seized assets are a "non-issue" compared to law
enforcement problems Question 8's passage would create, and Ludlow Police
Chief James McGowan agreed. He said that seized assets account for only
about 5 percent of the $2 million annual budget for his 33-person
department.

McGowan said that if Question 8 passes, police may be less motivated to make
arrests.

"What incentive would any chief or law enforcement officer have, if he knew
he was not going to get any convictions?" he asked.