By Bob Hertz
During the Acton Select Board meeting of December 5, 2022, a vote was taken to allow for reduction of citizen debate, a not-so-subtle move from democracy toward tyranny. The vote will not likely impact my dwindling years, but will affect those considerably younger who plan to stay in Acton.
Perhaps the most important pillar of democracy is debate, and the transparency which goes with it. Without debate all other pillars are subject to change with no external input or understanding. The trend in Acton is no different than what has been going on country wide over the last several years. The Twitter revelations give us a glimpse of efforts to thwart discussion at the national level.
At the fervent urging of Mr. Martin, votes taken at this meeting will allow elected or appointed committee/commission Chairs to decide for their group the acceptable level of free and open citizen participation. The heavy thumb of Mr. Martin on the Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Commission has already barred external debate within that body on the basis that some input is hurtful. I am not sure of the position of Mr. Martin or other Select Board members on observation of meeting deliberations since such is mandated by the Commonwealth. Four passionate liberals of our Select Board outvoted the one moderate to seal the directive. All these folks have their personal agendas and the four, who somewhat think along the same lines, tend to vote in a block hoping, I assume, for the same treatment when their pet project comes to a vote.
I subscribe to a newspaper which covers Chatham, Mass. and three surrounding communities. Within that paper are constant debates, some unfortunately rather heated, on issues before boards and committees and very concerning to citizens. Members of boards and committees, although perhaps not pleased by certain comments, appear to have no serious health effects as a result thereof. Acton, unfortunately, no longer has that venue for discussion. The current votes will further stifle debate within our town.
I am sure few in Acton truly want to see the end of democracy in our small town or elsewhere. Most citizens of non-democratic countries have not fared well. I hope Acton citizens will weigh this when next voting for Select Board members. You may well be voting for democracy or tyranny.
Good afternoon Alissa:
We agree there are public-input venues within town. Few beside the 2- minute allotment in Citizen Concerns, however, are effective in addressing an audience of all persuasions. Most available platforms are polarized. Jeremy, since you bring his name up, describes the Acton Forum as “Acton’s alt-right forum”. I suggest the site which he co-moderates is a left-leaning platform. The hyperlink https://capecodchronicle.com/en/5644/chatham/ is an example of a widely-read local newspaper which attempts to be a neutral moderator, printing letters to the editor on all sides of controversial subjects. I know of no such outlet in Acton.
I accept your version of history as to the 2-minute rule, with which I have no issue. I do have an issue with lack of consistency and lack of affected-party notification, two serious missteps in one citizen concerns portion (October 18, 2021) of a meeting chaired by Mr. Martin which, in my view, contained way too much slanted theater. Regularly viewing these things could be injurious to ones health.
I also have an issue with Mr. Martin’s heavy-thumb approach to DEIC communication, and do not believe the change would have been made without his complete acquiescence. The action was not needed unless his desire was, and is, opacity. As Mr. Kadlec pointed out, the Chair has control of the microphone, which if matched with a delayed play, allows abusive discussion to be cut.
I am not addressing State and Federal level meetings, but would guess many legislators would be less wealthy without lobbying efforts. Mr. Bankman-Fried is current evidence of the pay-for-play that goes on in all parties. For more examples, read any of Peter Schweizer’s books. Additionally, all legislators or their aids have infinite constituent meetings. All legislative bodies have endless committee meetings where invited input, generally with some opposing views, is featured. Via a representative model, there is plenty of opportunity to reach State and Federal legislators. Given enough volume they will listen, knowing they can be voted out of office. There also are sufficient platforms to get a message widely distributed if the venues believe it marketable.
On the matter of democracy vs tyranny within town, I have said all I want at this point. Democracy is not present in all of Acton’s boards or committees, a sad state of affairs.
Thanks for the comments.
Bob Hertz
Good morning, Jeremy:
We agree, the Finance Committee should be elected. Their primary function of opining on Acton finances might be better served if they were so chosen.
Election processes, in a substantially liberal town (see any prior election results), do not favor my conservative view. I accept that. I believe Mr. Martin and perhaps other Selectpersons would like to suppress free speech at all meetings. I do not accept that or believe it to be in the best interest of the citizens of Acton. Opportunities to reach different audiences, not simply “preach to the choir”, are few in our polarized world. I believe you refer to the Acton Forum as “Acton’s alt-right forum”. Guessing your school related site leans to the left, I hope you, as moderator, and in the spirit of fairness, would give Actonians, who disagree with school policy, unfettered and equal use of your platform to reach others wavering or with a differing point of view, as does the Forum. Although there may be uninterested readers, there also may be parents who are disturbed by lack of transparency in or direction of school policy.
I can’t agree that speech, the lifeblood of democracy, should as a matter of policy be silenced in public meetings. Although I do not attend meetings, I also do not begrudge those willing to attend, their right to speak. I understand some issues go on forever, some speakers love to talk, some speech is unreasonably aggressive, and time is of the essence. All of that can and should be controllable by the Chair, within reason and without shutting down the process. Hindering speech in public meetings is not that large a leap to hindering all speech.
The replacement of Columbus Day, which you bring up, is one of many woke movements raised by the Select Board to which citizens of Acton have differing views. Selectpersons, when striking off a long-standing holiday, have, I suggest, a duty to listen to all sides before issuing their vote. The timing of the issue was completely that of the selectpersons. The same is true of regulations burdening Actonians with increasing and costly energy choices while major countries get pollution passes. Getting back to school leadership, they should be pleased to explain their views (provide real transparency) on what will be condoned in their libraries, or other burning issues. They should also be willing to entertain opposing views. That, sir, is democracy, and the opposite is tyranny.
I thank you for your comments and hope you will extend, to anyone interested, the ability to use the platform moderated by you.
Bob Hertz
Bob, thanks for the expansion of thoughts on this issue. I agree with Jeremy that there are many other avenues for public input, and I take advantage of them regularly. The simplest is an email. I’ve also arranged phone calls and in person chats with our Select Board members. There really isn’t a freedom of speech, freedom to address grievances, or freedom of expression violation here. Public body meetings are held in public, not “with the public.” It’s a real privilege to have so many opportunities at the local government level to speak at public meetings, unlike meetings of the state and federal legislatures. I believe only hearings have a requirement to allow public comment. I admit to only paying close, regular attention to Town politics since 2018, but in that time, I had not seen a SB Chair impose a time limit on individual comments, nor on public comment total length for any agenda item, including Citizen/Resident Concerns, until that is, Jon Benson imposed a 2 minute limit following his failed re-election bid. That seemed to open the door to David Martin, and now Dean Charter, to trying out various restrictions. I had only seen a limit before then at Town Meeting. Like Obama’s excessive wielding of Executive Order inspired Trump, and now Biden, to also heavily use this tool. Big, fragile egos in public office do not serve the public well, and exist across the political spectrum. Re: the DEIC, all members of the committee made the decision to not allow public comment during meetings. It was not an arbitrary decision, nor one made by a single individual. It’s also my understanding that there are two co-chairs, but as the committee membership lists are notoriously out-of-date, there’s no indication who those co-chairs are.
On agenda for the Dec 15th school committee meeting, we saw a new limit on public participation at the beginning of the meeting and for one particular agenda item. It seems the chair of that committee is aligning with Mr. Martin’s attempts to stifle public input and further alienate people already hesitant to attend or speak up.
It would have been more of a surprise if the four illiberal members of the BoS had actually voted to require committees to allow public input at meetings.
I watched the meeting and it seemed as though everyone who wanted to speak had time to speak. The limit was the normal two minutes. Was someone not allowed to speak?
Hi Corinne,
I watched last night’s school committee meeting and it looked like everyone who wanted to speak was allowed to. The time limit was the usual 2 minutes. Did I miss something?
The school committee and select board are elected bodies. Every year we have the opportunity to vote. This hasn’t changed. I’d argue that we should also have a directly elected Finance Committee and Planning Board. That’s where we have a democratic deficit.
Once elected the members of these boards are representatives not delegates. We elect them to use their wisdom to make decisions on our behalf. There is plenty of opportunity to provide them with your views outside of the meeting. There are also plenty of opportunities to debate online. This being one of them. The are free to take or ignore our advice. We can always vote for someone else.
How much input should the public have during meetings? Well that’s one for the committee chair. Time is limited, these are volunteers and meeting time has to be used to best effect. Should the Select Board spend an infinite amount of time listening to complaints about the renaming of Columbus Day or should they be discussing road safety and the recent death and injuries on Great Road?
One point I would agree with on about decline in democratic input is the decision to no longer allow comments over zoom at the Select Board meeting. That was the unilateral decision of the one Select Board member you seem to agree with.
Open Meeting Law confers upon the public the right to attend meetings of public bodies, but it does not confer upon the public the right to participate. This decision has historically been made by the Chair, and is made uniquely for each agenda item. Comments are often limited in the total amount of time as well as in the time for each participant. Nothing has changed with the Select Board vote of 12/5. The language of continuing to allow this historic practice and protocol was simply an affirmation that it will continue. Public debate/citizen debate is something that can continue in the free press. Hopefully, Acton residents will get organized and bring back a print paper (LWV is spearheading this effort now), but until then, the Beacon is still available online and welcomes submissions, as does the AF where you are currently exercising your 1A rights which are still safe.
Alissa, always a pleasure to learn your point of view.
I am familiar with the Open Meeting Law, but am disappointed the Commonwealth did not go further. Maura Healey, in her Guide dated 2017, encourages public bodies to “allow as much public participation as time permits” while suggesting the issue is in the hands of the chair – a legislative mistake in my opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court has, for the most part, emphasized their support for freedom of speech.
Yes, the December 5 meeting reiterated the position of the Select Board (especially of Mr. Martin) regards public participation. I simply do not agree democracy is well served by gagging public discussion. Mr. Martin has been anything but consistent in his application of participation rules. During Select Board meetings he chaired, he generally held resident concerns to a three-to-five-minute period per speaker, but in October of 2021 gave an individual over thirty minutes to make her case while denying prompt rebuttal to the accused. Mr. Martin has arbitrarily decided public participation in the DEI Commission meetings is hurtful, and hence not allowable. He stated, on December 5, that he may allow public participation, even though he claims not to be the Commission Chair.
I believe Mr. Martin, if allowed, would reject all public participation in any board or committee deliberations. Apparently, he knows all the answers, or simply does not care what opposers might think. I do not believe his borderline-totalitarian style is beneficial to Acton. I would guess the remainder of the Board, regardless of their votes of December 5, would allow public participation, and for that I applaud them.
I am a political moderate/conservative, and am not a Martin fan. I am always pleased to see new avenues for dialogue. Meanwhile, I hope Acton citizenry will vote for discussion and transparency, and against the heavy-thumbed practices of Mr. Martin. I do not think anyone in Acton, including Mr. Martin, will see a long-run benefit resulting from tyranny.
Happy holidays to you, and thank you for your thoughtful opinions.
Bob Hertz