Letter To The Editor: Recall Election Arguments 'Cynically False'

READING, MA — The following letter to the editor was submitted by Main Street resident Walt Tuvell.

To The Editor —

I write regarding the upcoming Recall Election of “Selectman” (a.k.a. “Select Board member”) Ms. Vanessa Alvarado, as portrayed in the front-page article of the Reading Daily Times Chronicle, dated Thursday, Aug 6, 2020, entitled “Brown: Recall election boils down to defense of Town Charter,” citing Town Meeting member Bill Brown. That article is plainly flat-out false, in two serious respects: (i) the Police Chief issue it reports is bogus (invalid, false, ersatz, phony), as a recall issue; (ii) the Ad Hoc Committee issue it reports is non-existent (literally), as a recall issue.

Throughout this letter, I assume the reader is familiar with the Chronicle article in question (https://f002.backblazeb2.com/file/PublicSharedFiles/ChronicleRecall.pdf), and I will adhere to the terms established by the article itself. This means I will not attack the Recall Petition on the basis of (what seems to be) its vengeful political picayune triviality, but rather by referring directly to the Reading Town website (https://www.readingma.gov), and especially the Home Rule Charter (https://www.readingma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1116/f/file/file/2015-04-21_reading_home_rule_charter.pdf), as the Petition and the article do.

(i) Police Chief issue is pure fabrication, made-up to appear valid, but it’s absolutely false.

The Police Chief issue is based solely upon a nakedly false reading of the Charter. Specifically: the sole (pseudo-)substantive content of the Recall Petition (https://www.readingma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1116/f/uploads/recall_petition_0.pdf, authored by John Arena on Feb 14, 2020, see https://www.readingma.gov/administrative-services/town-clerk/pages/recall-timeline), alleges some kind of nebulous hand-waving “violation of §5.2b of the Charter,” by wrongly claiming that the Charter is a limiting document (that is, somehow limiting the Select Board and its members to particular powers enumerated in the Charter). First, note that §5.2 deals with the Town Manager, not the Select Board, so even if anyone could conceivably be attacked on that basis, it would have to be the Town Manager (see Charter §5.5), not the Board or Ms. Alvarado. But much more importantly, the “limitation” claim is nakedly false — because the Charter itself is explicitly, according to its very own terms, a positively empowering document, not a negatively limiting one.

Namely, Charter §1.4 (“Interpretation of Powers”) itself explicitly explains that the “specific” mention (in the Charter) of any “particular” “power” is not intended to limit the “general” powers of the Town of Reading. Here, the phraseology “powers of the Town” is defined/explained in Charter §1.2 (“Division of Powers”), §1.3 (“Powers of the Town — Intent of the Voters”), §3.2 (“Board of Selectmen”) and §5.2 (“Powers and Duties” of Town Manager), which vest all executive power authority for the management of the Town’s affairs solely in the Town’s Select Board (with non-executive administrative support from the Town Manager, who is appointed by the Board).

In other words (as relevant to the recall issue): While the Select Board and Ms. Alvarado are positively empowered by the Charter to exercise certain “particular powers” (i.e., powers specifically mentioned therein), they are not negatively limited by the Charter from further exercising their “general powers” (i.e., powers not specifically mentioned in the Charter, but generally recognized as valid instruments of governance, such as “consulting and negotiating” with any town official about such matters). That is to say: the Charter §1.4 explicitly permits Selectmen (and the Town Manager) to perform “general” actions above and beyond their “particular” powers (as specifically granted in the Charter). Or again: any “general power” not “specifically mentioned” in the Charter is expressly permitted, not forbidden.

With respect to the Police Chief issue, the Select Board as a whole body (not only Ms. Alvarado, so why does the Recall Petition viciously target her individually?) has clearly (according to all available information that has been publicly promulgated) exercised only permitted “general powers” recognized by the Charter (such as “discussing or negotiating legitimate town business with the Town Manager,” which is certainly a “general” “other duty” as contemplated by Charter §5.2q), and has abridged none of the “particular powers” granted to the Board (certainly, no such has been alleged, and no such evidence exists). The Recall Petition’s claims are thus falsely contrary to this obvious truth.

Therefore, the Police Chief (pseudo-)issue is provenly completely invalid.

Even more, the Police Chief recall issue is actually “in-bad-faith.” Because, it is authored by John Arena (a former Selectman, replaced by Alvarado), and is supported by Bill Brown, both of whom can be presumed (or self-proclaim themselves) to be, experts on the Charter. They “should (and do) know better,” yet they falsely misrepresent the meaning of the Charter, knowingly contrary to the Charter’s own terms of interpretation. That is “bad-faith.” By signing his false sworn statement of the grounds upon which the Recall Affidavit is based (Charter §8.11.2), John Arena has committed an intentional act of falsification concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

(ii) Ad Hoc Committee issue does not even exist.

I have searched for official information (on the town website) concerning any aspect of the purported Ad Hoc Committee issue (as a recall issue), but I can find none. I have written to the Town Clerk, Ms. Laura Gemme (https://www.readingma.gov/users/lgemme/contact), requesting any such information, but she hasn’t responded to me yet.

I conclude that the Ad Hoc Committee issue is, officially, non-existent. So it cannot be on the Recall Election ballot, and Reading residents will not be voting on it. Bill Brown is thus severely misleading the public about the existence of this Ad Hoc Committee issue (presuming the Chronicle article accurately portrays Brown’s position). To call this out for what it is: it’s a focused smear campaign, using the tactic of surreptitiously inventing a “fake” recall issue, published in the Chronicle to intentionally confuse Reading voters.

In conclusion: All the arguments that have been advanced by John Arena and Bill Brown (and others) regarding the Recall Election against Ms. Alvarado are cynically false (as proved herein), and must be rejected by all rational voters in Reading. The proponents of the Recall Election must be publicly called out as deliberate and harmful fabricators (e.g., many/most signers of the Recall Petition were undoubtedly misled by Arena, Brown and others).

— Walt Tuvell, Main St., Aug 11, 2020