We could have done better. Content is what we do; process is how we do it. We voted down the purchase of land this year. No matter, this year we will learn why we must control our destiny and next year we will have a land bank. (Read suggestions from readers below) For now, forget the content and look at the process because “it ain’t what you say, it’s the way how ya say it.”
1. Now that we have clickers handed out at the door to only those on an official voters list, there is absolutely no reason, in a town with a median age of 65, to ask anyone to sit on bleachers. They might like to sit on a more comfortable seat; age-related conditions may require that they must. They may like to sit with friends. Is it so hard to imagine that “townies” and “outlanders” might be friendly? Is it so hard to recognize that it is a travesty to create an us-and-them in our little village?
2. During a Public Hearing, Jamie Minacci was roundly criticized for limiting speakers to two minutes, but remember, Minacci allowed everyone to speak. To each of us who criticized Minacci, what did we say when the Moderator stopped one woman from speaking? Did we understand her feelings, rise, and defend her right to speak?
3. There is no good reason, now or ever, to publicly humiliate anyone who wants to put in their two cents worth. There is no fairness or decency in allowing someone to speak who articulates your position, and then in rudely shutting up someone who doesn’t.
4. The Moderator said he did it because she was a nonvoter. Folks that’s almost 50% of us. Do we wish 50% to lose their First Amendment rights in Stockbridge? Someone justified it by saying, “that’s okay, Town Meeting is for us (locals) not them (second homeowners).” Really? Two of our early second homeowners were Theodore Sedgwick and MumBet. They were followed by the Astors, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Proctors, Alsops, Whistlers, and Whitneys. They contributed their words and more; we benefited.
5. For excellent reasons, there is a whole body of ethics that insists town employees, appointed and elected representatives, remain neutral. That all disclose any potential conflicts of interest. That no one lies to the assembly.
6. Whether against the strict interpretation of ethics, or just in opposition to the spirit of ethical laws, neither the Moderator nor anyone else should speak without disclosing a conflict. The Moderator might model this behavior and invite other speakers to disclose that they own or work for someone who owns Chapter 61 property, is an abutter, or lives close enough to benefit or be harmed by how a Chapter 61 property is disposed of.
7. For good reason, a Moderator moves the meeting along, manages time, and does not allow a 15-minute “commercial interruption” for one committee (and no other committee commission or board) to announce their “credentials.”
I like Gary. I think most people do. However, on May 19, Gary led a meeting that did not reflect well on us. With your 50 years of experience, we need you, Gary, please help us to do better. Please lead with equanimity and an even hand, remind the assembly of their rights, remind them of the roles of those who speak, correct misinformation, and remind us that every human being deserves dignified response. Thank you, Gary. You know what? We’re Stockbridge; we could have and we should have done better.
