As some people high-five each other and bask in the glow of the recent compromise of the newly minted “article 17½” that was approved at Saturday’s Annual Town Meeting, I’d caution people against being swept up in the moment.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m glad that a peace accord was brokered between the Municipal Buildings Committee (MBC) and two disgruntled selectmen who threatened to scuttle the MBC’s carefully crafted and extensively researched approach to preserving our town buildings, which was put on the Town Meeting warrant by a majority vote of the selectmen.
Throughout the past year, the MBC has worked extraordinarily hard at being transparent, keeping minutes of their meetings, making proper legal postings, and engaging the public in the process on many different levels.
I’m sure it’s old news now that on the day selectmen signed the warrant almost a month ago, a citizens’ petition was filed by two selectmen, which set a collision course for two competing articles at Town Meeting. Rather than working within the framework of the Open Meeting Law and working out their concerns in plain sight, the two selectmen chose a path that excluded the public, confused voters, and had the potential to submarine the whole attempt to revitalize our public buildings.
When it became apparent that Article 18 was not garnering the support these statesmen had hoped for, they began a campaign to negotiate a compromise beyond the confines of posted committee meetings and the office of the selectmen.
In the week before Town Meeting, proponents of Article 18 refused to meet in public at either a regularly scheduled meeting of the MBC or the selectmen. This is where the compromise should have been negotiated—in the open, with full access by the press and the public. Incredibly, during the week before Town Meeting, two reporters were asked to leave a posted public meeting at the request of Selectman Warren so that the MBC could “discuss an offer from the proponents of Article 18.” This should raise serious alarm bells for the public. (To be clear, the committee did not make the request for the reporters to leave.)
In addition, the day before Town Meeting, the documentary short film Town Hall, Liability or Legacy? was pulled from its broadcast slot on the public access cable channel under political pressure from proponents of Article 18 (as evidenced in an e-mail from a Harvard Hillside reporter) and was only restored to the air after I responded with potential legal action for violations of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the federal law that regulates public access programming.
Let’s not ignore the voices at Town Meeting that also raised legitimate concerns about “the great compromise” because it was not developed in public session, despite having a majority of the selectmen indirectly weighing in on the resolution (myself excluded) in some fashion in the days before Town Meeting. In addition, the revised warrant article and accompanying “statement of intent” that was read at Town Meeting had not previously been seen by the press, the public, or me for that matter, until 8:15 a.m. the morning of Town Meeting. I had a sum total of two minutes to scan the document before being asked to vote on this fait accompli. The most disturbing trend that has emerged is that it appears to be acceptable to skirt the Open Meeting Law, slide in a last-minute compromise that was brokered behind closed doors, and then be so bold as to read it on the Town Meeting floor without even providing a written copy to the public. “Article 17½” itself is remarkably similar to what was printed in the warrant for article 17, but very nuanced as to what it does and does not accomplish. In addition, the “statement of intent” that accompanied the compromise motion is lengthy and provides contradictory statements that I am sure will be used to distract and confuse the process further as we move ahead with the schematic design phase of Town Hall, Hildreth House and the pilot project the old library. I’m sure the public did not fully understand the implications of the “understanding” that was included in the “statement of intent,” as there was virtually no debate on its contents or its merits.
I cannot condone these behaviors, as they jeopardize the integrity of our elected and appointed boards. The press and the public should not take these threats lightly. If these behaviors continue, it will only widen the divide and mistrust between the public and the elected officials that are there to serve.
Bolton Road resident Tim Clark is a Harvard selectman.
