What is Deception? A Review of One Example from the Acton Select Board

By Bob Hertz

I believe we got a dose of it on October 18, 2021. Fabrications, silence, and distortions by several members of the Select Board (SB) seem to have exploited sincere and serious claims from a tenant of the Acton Housing Authority (AHA). These claims were made against this independent agency which provides subsidized housing for qualifying residents. Was a public airing necessary? I believe the SB expected the tenant would speak at the meeting and should have suggested a private airing of the grievances with all parties present.

Why write this now, almost a year later? After much stalling by our town leaders and four interventions by the Commonwealth on my behalf, I believe I finally have (not all) enough requested information to conclude that a portion of the October 18 meeting was a contrivance by one or more SB members to buttress various board initiatives with total disregard for AHA and others, and to feed unfounded narratives to Acton citizenry. Additionally, the SB membership is as it was October 18, 2021.

I requested all Acton administration, departments, boards, and committees release all records related to claims made against AHA during the October 18 meeting, and all substantiated records of discrimination in Acton. The Clerk of Acton is under order from the Secretary of State to assemble and release responsive records or provide reasons for non-disclosure where records are non-existent or withheld. Based on what I have and likely have not received, I believe some SB members used this opportunity to be disingenuous with Acton citizens to further their own agendas. If this behavior is a pattern, I hope for the well-being of Acton, it ceases immediately.

Mr. Martin assured the claimant, in a heartrending utterance, that we (the Town) will look into the events and get back to you (the claimant). He later produced a carefully-crafted statement, “The Select Board did not request an investigation to find instances of discrimination as a result of (claimants’) email and statement. Thus, there is no report on this matter from the Town Manager or AHA”. Mr. Snyder-Grant requested the Town Manager (TM) “look into” the “complex allegations” and provide an update. Remarks of several SB members and claimant were clearly a charge to the TM to report any instances of discrimination exposed during the review. Acton’s health department did inspect and author reports on the claimant’s unit. Although some unhealthy conditions were discovered, other violations could be made of any dated residence. Exchanges between the TM and Mr. Martin discuss looking into discrimination. Is not one of Mr. Martin’s widely differing statements a deliberate fabrication?

The AHA was presumably kept in the dark until too late to react to the e-mail received by the SB October 17, 2021, and was never informed of the expectation the claimant would speak at the meeting of October 18, a probability which must have been apparent to some on the SB. The TM sent the e-mail of the 17^th to the AHA less than two hours before the October 18 meeting – after holding it a day, and then included it in the October 18 SB information packet issued as support for the meeting. A spokesperson for AHA suggested the SB “breached its obligation of prior notice.” The delayed delivery allowed one side of the story to be voiced in an open forum while effectively deferring contradictory voices during this condemnation – the equivalent of deceit.

Ms. Nagireddy suggested, apparently with no verification of the facts, that the claims of the tenant were examples of “discrimination that happens in Acton.” Had Ms. Nagireddy requested confirmation from the AHA (only a phone call away) or read a report of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination related to most of the claims made, she would have been aware that MCAD found no basis for a discrimination claim. Was the distortion simply sloppy process or a calculated deception?

Acton leadership, including Ms. Nagireddy, have been asked to produce all documents related to substantiated claims of discrimination, other than two zoom calls or school related abuses by misguided kids, currently handled by school and police actions.  Assuredly, there is some low level of post-school discriminatory activity within town boundaries. Acton leadership, however, provided no substantiated claims or statistics of discrimination and has given no reason for withholding such records. I therefor assume the assertions of Ms. Nagireddy are unsupported. To what type of discrimination does Ms. Nagireddy refer – race, religion, age, disability, sex, economic, other, or all the aforementioned? What percent of Acton citizens does she, apparently based only on supposition, paint as bigots?

Ms. Arsenault was the SB liaison to the AHA in October 2021. Where was Ms. Arsenault during the meeting? As the liaison she had, I believe, a moral obligation to notify AHA immediately upon receiving the claimants’ script on October 17 and had a full day to do so. Apparently, she did not. Ms. Arsenault, as a new SB liaison, should have briefed herself with AHA issues. Was she unaware of the Covid restrictions everyone, including AHA was under? Ms. Arsenault should have known that the Massachusetts COVID mandate was that rental units be entered only in emergency, and that the mandate, once lifted, would result in a backlog requiring time to resolve, and finally that the mandate, which lasted for over a year, was not lifted until mid-2021. Was Ms. Arsenault aware of these facts, and did she relay them to the SB? Might mandates and catch-up time be why inspections and routine repairs were not made? Was she aware of the restrictive maintenance budgets AHA works with? She said nothing. Why was she by and large silent? Deception comes in many forms.

Evidently neither Mr. Martin, Ms. Nagireddy nor Mr. Snyder-Grant directed the TM and staff to investigate and/or report beyond issues of this one unit, which seems strange in that during the October 18 public meeting the group passionately suggested a larger issue of prejudicial treatment. Given the histrionics displayed, I would have expected a significant review, contacts with other tenants, and more expansive remedial findings than what appears to be the case. Released documents suggest only one SB member directed the TM to investigate, and only on this individual set of claims. Disclosed documents do not reflect any fault finding or remedial suggestions other than those made by the health division on this one unit and some broad-brushed suggestions to AHA.

Was the event perhaps a mediocre charade on the part of several select persons meant as validation for upcoming votes to make the Diversity Equity & Inclusion Committee (DEIC) permanent, to add a Human Services Committee and to add an expensive DEI Director, a fait accompli only needing formalization?, Was it justification for a tenant-advocate position which Mr. Martin suggested, rightly so, would be largely nonproductive (presumably not the opinion of all SB members) – and I believe, a duplicative waste of money? Issues of the claimant should have been resolved in private. The SB and AHA should have a working relationship, and a common goal. The public display did nothing to advance the cause of the claimant beyond that possible in private.

I am not knowledgeable enough or qualified to make any conclusions regarding claims of the distraught tenant, and so I do not. I do, however, have a verdict regarding the actions of our leadership. I have received various documents after months of stalling – so much for transparency. The forwarded documents along with additional facts in my possession, have explained, to some extent, the events of October 18 and periods before and after. I believe they point to misleading statements and deceptive posturing of some of Acton leadership. I hope this was a one-off event, and not norm for several current board members. To paraphrase on old saying, politics and sausage making are messy businesses. Acton politics need not be. I have faith Acton leadership can do better and am encouraged by recent transfer of the SB chair to the one select person I am sure did not participate in what I believe to be an unfortunate ruse.