Conduct Unbecoming

Conduct Unbecoming

During last Monday’s Town Council (TC) meeting, Councilors gave thoughtful synopses that analyzed the reasons why they selected their two top picks for the Town’s new Administrator. They offered solid and contemplative discussion about what is best for the Town now and for the next many years. It was, in my opinion, one of the best, most genuine discussions I’ve heard in a while.

Prior to Monday’s meeting, the Council’s newest member, Brian Fox, consistently reached out to the public to keep residents up to date on what was happening, and how to offer valuable public input into the process. He was the only TC member to have done so. I applaud this pro-active and inclusive approach. We need more of this.

Unfortunately, one TC member’s comments were rife with disdain for the very idea of public comment: “I hate public participation. I hate that certain people come.... to our meetings and speak out against things. It bothers me that these people exist out there that (sic) write letters to the Item...it’s not right they take a negative viewpoint of what we’re trying to do. When they make nasty remarks about candidates or people…I don’t want anything to do with those people.”

Getting elected does not grant impunity or the authority to act without public scrutiny; believing that it does is deeply troubling and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. This Councilor later repeated the same sentiment, saying “We run for office for a reason. Why should we let these people take a bit of our time…..and get an audience with the public, criticizing us for the path we are taking? I just don’t believe in it.”

By “these people” - he means you, his constituents, the people he was elected to represent, the residents and taxpayers of Wakefield. “These people”, as if we are the enemy, daring to take a ‘bit of his time’. This is not the right attitude of a public servant, and I hope does not represent the attitude of the Town Council as a whole.

No Town Committee member should be subjected to rudeness, of course, and has a right to feel annoyed if that happens. From what I have seen, however, none of the letters to The Daily Item were “nasty” or inappropriate. Quite the opposite: the letters in the papers were thoughtful, constructive, fact-based and –sourced, and well within the bounds of civil discourse. I do not recall anyone during recent public participation being unruly.

Disagreeing with government is the lifeblood of democracy—and is Constitutionally- protected, even at the local level. At a time when free speech and a free press face unprecedented attacks, it takes courage for residents to speak up. Those who do engage, care about their community. We need not agree with every viewpoint, but good-faith participation deserves respect, not ridicule, and certainly not out and out dismissal.

Although the Council member has a right to say what he wants, why does he want to take that right away from the Wakefield public? His words represent an attack on the First Amendment rights of others. I was dismayed that no other TC member spoke to defend the public’s right to speak. While the Chair attempted to take the sting out of the Councilor’s words, the harsh sentiment was permitted to stain an otherwise productive and professional meeting.

Winston Churchill said.” Everyone is in favor of free speech….. but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." Handling criticism with civility is not optional; it is a core responsibility of public service. A healthy democracy depends on an engaged citizenry, even when their voices are critical.

You can hear the comments here:

https://www.youtube.com/live/AQRSqiyvN-4

Minute marks: 5 min 38 sec; and 55minutes

Bronwyn Della-Volpe

.