By Bob Hertz
Getting basic answers to simple questions should not be as hard as the Select Board (SB) seems to want it to be. The questions have to do with the Residents’ Concern portion of a SB meeting of October 18, 2021 in which a tenant made several claims of a serious nature against the Acton Housing Authority (AHA), the landlord. The focus of the questions is not tenant claims, but actions, non-actions and statements of various SB members related thereto. Actonians should be comfortable that what we see on the surface is representative of what is really going on. Why were the claims of the tenant made in a public forum? The SB read the e-mail script of claims the prior evening, likely knew the claimant intended to address the public meeting of October 18, and could have made their same pledges to the individual in private? Might there be a political tinge to the proceedings?
Timing:
I have asked whether the SB, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission (DEIC) or the Town Manager and/or staff (TM) or any of their representatives had contact with the tenant, or representatives thereof, before or after the individual submitted an e-mail script of claims on October 17 and then recited the same claims on October 18. I have no doubt that this individual feels extremely slighted by the AHA, and apparently has looked for various outlets to vent frustrations and seek help. I question why the claims surfaced on October 18. These claims date from several years past until present and are made against an organization, AHA, which is outside the jurisdiction of the SB. I am told this individual and the claims have generally been known for some time by certain members of Acton governance. The claimant was allowed an inordinate amount of time to make the claims (approximately 35 minutes vs a typical 2 – 5 minutes). Was that narrative intended, by the SB, as a cover for making permanent the DEIC (a vote that was a certainty) a little less than two months later? Was the narrative intended to support the recent addition of a supper-social-worker committee (the Human Services Committee) or perhaps a new, to Acton, Tenant Advocate position? If Town governance was generally aware of the claims and/or claimant prior to October 17, I believe nondisclosure of that fact was an unacceptable omission on the part of one or more SB members. Because questions of timing have gone largely unanswered, Actonians are left to wonder.
Throwing AHA under the bus:
The SB, or some portion thereof, had the e-mail script on October 17, and I would guess, greatly suspected, or knew, the claimant would appear at the SB meeting of October 18 to read the claims. Apparently, the SB did not feel it necessary to forewarn the AHA or to do anything to verify the facts in the e-mail. Did the presentation of the claims provide a narrative which, as Ms. Nagireddy suggests “describes the discrimination that happens in Acton”? Mr. Peter Berry, a prior selectperson, and an AHA Board member represented AHA (an entity distinct from the Town of Acton) during the following SB meeting, not held until November 1, 2021. He stated the SB, by not timely informing the AHA of the claims e-mail, “breached its obligation of prior notice”. Mr. Berry suggested the claims of unfair treatment “were not true and had been reviewed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) which found no basis for a claim of discrimination”. Unfortunately, the deferred remarks of Mr. Berry were largely ignored – the damage to AHAs reputation was done. With a lack of answers to simple questions, I assume there was no desire on the part of the SB to verify facts or present fair warning. Ignoring the necessary fact checking or not informing AHA management of the e-mail were, I believe, unacceptable omissions of duty.
Promises made but not kept:
During the meeting of October 18, passionate statements were made by three of the five SB members suggesting the claimant could depend on the SB to investigate. Mr. Martin, Chair of the SB, requested that the claimant leave her telephone number with the TM, who was at the meeting, and suggested to the claimant that “we’ll look into that” and “somebody will get back to you”. Later in the meeting Mr. Snyder-Grant, a SB member, stated, “the board members and staff here are committed to figuring out what’s gone wrong and figuring out how to fix it”. Mr. Martin suggested the SB could act as mediators between the tenant and the AHA. Ms. Nagireddy declared “I look forward to there being a discussion around investigating this further and for us to hear, as a SB, updates on this”. The TM later suggested he would investigate anything the Board wanted him to.
How would the TM report back to the SB and/or the claimant if he made no investigation and/or report? How would The SB mediate without knowing the facts of the matter? I believe there was an implied request, during the SB meeting of October 18, for an investigation and a report. Was there further consultation between any SB member and the TM clarifying any of the public comments made? I find it suspect that the TM would simply ignore the desires of at least three of five board members – his bosses. I have asked these questions and have received the following response. Mr. Martin stated “The Select Board did not request an investigation to find instances of discrimination as a result of the claimant’s email and statement. Thus, there is no report on this matter from the Town Manager or AHA”. This seems a very strange response given the passion behind statements of October 18 which were as much a request to the TM for review and report as I have ever seen.
Mr. Charter was the only SB member who was consistent in his position. Ms. Arsenault did not voice an opinion. The strong positions taken by the other three members, who apparently read the scripts on the evening prior to the presentation, appears to have changed immediately after October 18. Nondisclosure of the apparent change of heart was, I believe, an unacceptable omission, and cause of a misrepresentation to two parties: First, the claimant and followers, who I suspect looked forward to a response from, and perhaps mediation by the SB/TM based on SB language. They likely did not get what the claimant wanted or expected. What, if anything did they get? Second, other citizens of Acton heard touching statements from the SB Chair and two additional members (one of whom saw a need to hug the claimant). Viewers would have expected an investigation/report and an understanding of whether the issues raised were, as one SB member stated, acts of “discrimination that happens in Acton”. There are significant differences in the narratives of the claimant and Mr. Berry. I suspect one version is more representative of the facts than the other. A majority of the SB, in their wisdom, apparently saw fit to not bother getting the opposing fact set or sifting through the information, either before the October 18 presentation or after, perhaps because clarification did not fit their purpose. Statements of discrimination should not be thrown about by Select Board members. They need verification of facts before lodging allegations. Once again, I suggest an unacceptable omission of responsibility.
In conclusion, some time ago, I wrote a Forum article titled ‘Time to Put the Record Straight”. I have since followed up with two e-mails to the Select Board (SB) asking a series of questions designed to better understand the events of the October 18, 2021 SB meeting, and events prior to and thereafter. My questions have either gone unanswered or only partially answered, and the SB chair tells me answers supplied are sufficient. As a result, I recently filed a Document Disclosure Request for which meaningful responses are likely months away, although such should not be the case. I am hopeful the disclosure-request documents, acquired at some future period, will shed light on these three areas of concern.
Government officials everywhere seem to take a position that the inner workings of government are not the business of the citizens they represent – government knows best. We see it in federal and state governments. We recently saw it locally in the lack of transparency, and apparent false representation of the school mascot surveys and proceedings. Many schools nationwide imply parents need not know what their children are taught, a view held by the Biden administration who suggests students belong to teachers while in school. The administration went so far as to work with a national teachers’ union to brand concerned parents as domestic terrorists, something the FBI is still pursuing. I worry we are seeing this same demeanor related to the actions, non-actions and statements of many of the SB members during and after the meeting of October 18. Slow-walked responses seem to the norm when officials are asked simple questions. Too often the final answers do not match public statements made by government officials. There must be trust in our governmental officials for the functions of government to run smoothly, and for citizens to keep the faith. All Actonians should be concerned if that trust is challenged by the actions of a few elected or appointed officials. I am unhappy to have to write this piece, and am concerned obfuscation and delay increasingly are part of Acton politics. I truly hope such is not the case. This is one small piece of our governmental workings, and contains at least four unacceptable omissions. Is the same going on elsewhere?
To receive email notifications, please contact actonforum2@gmail.com
Leave a Reply