With the date of Harvard’s annual parade less than seven weeks away, the town’s Fourth of July Committee and League of Women Voters of Harvard seemed ready to resolve their nearly year-old dispute. But differences remain.
Last year the league complained that its rights had been violated by the committee’s demand the day of the 2023 parade that one of its parade signs (“Roe is Gone, What’s Next?”) be removed. The Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union agreed and, in a four-page letter to the Select Board and Town Administrator Tim Bragan, urged the town “to take immediate steps to rescind the Policy and notify the public of its rescission.”
This month the committee adopted new rules for parade participants that empower parade officials or law enforcement personnel to remove anyone engaged in unsafe or unlawful behavior. But consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the committee will no longer attempt to regulate the number and content of parade banners and signs. A section previously titled “Code of Conduct” has been edited and merged with a section titled “Safety.”
The revised policy was approved by a unanimous vote of the Select Board April 2 and is currently posted at the Fourth of July Committee webpage, where this year’s parade participants are required to register. (Go to harvard-ma.gov, click on “Boards & Committees,” then on “Fourth of July Committee” and “Parade Participation Instructions and Rules.”)
While the new rules, which have been vetted by Town Counsel Mark Lanza, would appear to satisfy the demands of both the league and ACLU, league members say they are “uncomfortable” with wording that states that failure to abide by rules, instructions, and decisions “are grounds for removal from the parade.”
At an April 10 meeting of the committee, which was attended by four members of the league, member Colleen McFadden said she remained concerned that what had happened in 2023, when the league was told by Fourth of July Committee Chair Chris Chalifoux to remove signs or be ejected from the parade, could happen again. “The way the language reads at this time, you could still do that,” said McFadden.
“No we can’t,” responded Chalifoux. “That would be unlawful,” added committee member Molly Sinkewicz—a violation of the protected right to free speech,
McFadden said that if either Chalifoux or Sinkewicz had been on the receiving end of the 2023 incident, they would feel differently. “I was in shock at how that came down,” she said. She asked whether the committee could add a clarifying phrase that would provide the league with assurance it wouldn’t happen again.
“We keep putting stuff forward and you keep saying it’s not what you want,” said Chalifoux. “Mistakes were made” last year, he said. But he was not chairman at the time, and he had been following what he believed to be committee policy. Would it be possible, he asked, for the league and committee to meet and collaborate on language that would be acceptable to everyone?
The question was greeted with a chorus of “yesses” from the audience. “We’ve been asking for that for a year,” said League President Stephanie Opalka, who was present. But those requests, she added, had been made to the committee’s liaison, Select Board Chair Rich Maiore, not to Chalifoux.
“I wasn’t aware of that,” said Chalifoux. “Honestly, I think we’ve got a good handle now on how to fix this situation and never have it happen again. I definitely want to move forward.”
“We do, too,” said Opalka.
League’s Open Meeting Law complaint remains open
Meanwhile, an Open Meeting Law complaint filed April 2 by the league against the Fourth of July Committee remains unresolved. The complaint cites four violations, including failure to post minutes and accurate agendas or to conduct meetings in ADA-compliant venues. The complaint alleges the committee deliberately misworded agendas to conceal its discussions of the now-abandoned code of conduct, a charge that Chalifoux denied last week. On April 9, the day before the committee’s most recent meeting—and absent a written response from Chalifoux, as state law requires—the league escalated its complaint to the office of the state attorney general.
At last week’s meeting, Chalifoux and July 4 committee members Sinkewicz and Rosemary Ouelet reviewed the four points of the league’s complaint, with Chalifoux acknowledging the errors of past committees and claiming his own inexperience as the reason. All three committee members have now read and certified they understand Open Meeting Law requirements, Chalifoux reported. Friday’s meeting was preceded by a posted agenda that Chalifoux followed to the letter, including approval of the minutes for a meeting held earlier that week. Chalifoux promised to do better and said he planned to draft a written response to the league’s formal complaint that weekend.
“You are a town committee,” admonished LWV member Meg Bagdonas. “If you expect to receive any public funding, you must follow the Open Meeting Law. That’s your responsibility.”
But she added, “There’s nothing in these actions or an intention to harm the Fourth of July parade, or prevent the Fourth of July parade. We know it’s cherished; we all cherish it. We wouldn’t participate if we didn’t cherish it. But we do think that we, as a community, should stand up to the highest standard and follow the Constitution.”
