Letter: Williamstown Planning Board & Open Meeting Law
 |
To the Editor:
Let's get all the facts about my position on this topic, and not just what an editor would like to list to create a story.
I was not made aware that my complaint was a topic at the Planning Board meeting or I would have attended. Frankly, once filed, the Open Meeting Law Complaint has to run its course.
The Planning Board's position should surprise no one. It is erroneous for the Planning Board to assume that simply because the three members of the Board were not present in the same room at the same time, thereby not achieving a quorum, that an Open Meeting Law violation did not occur. By definition, an Open Meeting Law violation can occur when a majority of a board communicates electronically. It's called the 21st century. That can and does include emails, text messages, and any other form of electronic communication whether as a group or in sequence. Ms. Gardner knows that and several individuals claiming to have worked with her in the background on the so-called "Gardner Amendment" stated to me that "this was not our (their) first rodeo" when it came to the Open Meeting Law. That is documented and will be passed along to the Attorney General's Office.
It is false for iBerkshires or Ms. Gardner to characterize herself that she was the "target" of my complaint in the 11th hour of an election. That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't know Ms. Gardner, have no grudge with her, but the election result speaks for itself. It is disingenuous for Ms. Gardner to paint herself as a victim in this matter simply because she lost the election. Frankly, I was stunned to have received telephone calls regarding the OML complaint well before anyone on any board had an opportunity to discuss this. The election indicates that her defeat was likely sealed on May 4 when she presented the amendment bearing her name, and that was a risk that she took on her own. By placing herself as the amendment's primary author, that alone put her in name in first place on the complaint, nothing more.
The OML complaint was filed for only one reason: A concern by myself and others that the integrity of the Planning Board be maintained including the processes by which decisions are made or amendments are created. For many, the amendment's preparation smacked of a back room deal. Only an OML complaint allows a process to occur whereby the facts are examined objectively. Whether or not a violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred, only an objective examination by the Attorney General's Office will show that, not the self-declaration of any Board which is the target of a complaint. In an age where we communicate instantly by voice, text, and email on our phones, you don't need to be physically present to be present. The Open Meeting Law has evolved to include electronic communications.
As for Ms. Gardner's comments about civility, when her surrogates, who claim to have worked with her on the "Gardner Amendment" and are not members of any town board attack me, I will respond in kind. I do not roll over and play dead. In life, there are days when you're the pigeon and other days when you're the statue, and you have to be willing to be either one if you decide to take a position on any topic these days.
Frankly, I would have to say that civility went out the window when Ms. Gardner's boyfriend, David Simmonds, decided that he was going to call my next door neighbor, Jack Nogueira, in the hopes of gaining some scuttlebutt on my relationship with my neighbor, and then promptly hung up when he learned Jack is my good friend. Legal advice given to me, triggered a call to the Attorney General's Office, and based on their recommendation, to the Massachusetts Ethics Commission.
Factually, the electronic communications between the three haven't been examined, and as indicated, I have already notified the Attorney General's Office last week about the complaint after Mr. Simmonds unwarranted and unprecedented phone call.
Upon receipt, I will be filing the Board's response with the Attorney General's Office as well, and let them take it from there. Whether or not a violation occurred is not up to any of us to personally decide. Certainly not me, not the residents of the town, and most certainly not the Planning Board. However, when the dust does settle, regardless of where, the integrity of the Planning Board and its processes will hopefully be settled in the eyes of everyone.
David Leja
Williamstown, Mass.
Tags: letters to the editor,
