An editorial written and voiced by Betty Cavacco, the Vice-Chair of the Plymouth Select Board, in response to a WATD editorial written and voiced by Finance Committee member, Robert Zupperoli.
Editorial text:
On behalf of the Select Board, I’d like to take this opportunity to address a number of inaccuracies, misstatements, and misperceptions which have arisen from a recent a editorial here on WATD.
First, certain comments have been made regarding the conduct of Select Board meetings. At all times, this Select Board has complied with the rules and regulations set forth in State law and our Town Charter.
So, for example, when it was suggested that a Select Board member should have recused himself from discussion regarding the Shanty Rose on February 1, due to a conflict of interest, that was simply wrong.
There are very explicit rules as to what is considered a conflict of interest, and all Select Board members followed those rules. The same goes for assertions that the Feb 15th meeting of the Select Board was conducted improperly.
As Vice-Chair, I ran that meeting during the period of time the Chairman, Mr. Quintal, was having difficulty with Zoom access. But as he confirmed when he was finally able to join meeting on his computer, he was still watching the meeting on PACTV – one of the benefits of the technology we adopted during the pandemic.
So when Mr. Quintal was finally able to be heard, he asked his questions, further discussion was conducted, and then a vote was taken. No rules were disregarded.
I firmly believe that our public meetings be conducted respectfully, and that is what we strive for. Occasionally, we don’t meet our own standards, such as when a private comment uttered by Mr. Helm during a break in proceedings was broadcast publicly. But after being informed that his statement had been heard by the public, at the appropriate time, Mr. Helm acknowledged it and made a sincere apology.
That is all anyone can ask for. Heated exchanges can occur when addressing the important issues facing our Town, such as the very form of our government.
For instance, some have taken issue with the Select Board’s decision to place non-binding questions regarding the form of Town government on the ballot at the next election. But those following the Charter Commission’s deliberations know that the reason for these questions was to address an issue raised by Vice Chair Larry Pizer at the Charter Commission meeting held on September 20, 2021, when he said, and I quote: “Believe me, we know that we want to do what the people want. The trick is figuring out what the people want. People who have spoken to 50, or 100, or 200 people have spoken to a miniscule subsection. There are 61,000 plus people.”
So, in order to give the Charter Commission the very information Mr. Pizer said they needed about what the people want, non-binding ballot questions were proposed.
These were discussed at two separate meetings, and before voting on them the Select Board also obtained confirmation from legal counsel that they were not in violation of any law or the Town Charter. Some have incorrectly claimed that these questions are an imposition on the independence of the Charter Commission. That is also wrong.
I want to stress, these are non-binding questions. They do not take away any of the authority of the Charter Commission. They are solely intended to provide guidance to the Charter Commission in their deliberations. The Charter Commission is free to ignore them.
In a recent editorial it was suggested that the questions really aren’t non-binding as the Charter Commission will feel bound by the vote. But again, that is wrong.
At its last meeting, even before the non-binding vote has taken place, the majority of Charter Commission members voted to draft a new charter which keeps Representative Town Meeting as our form of government.
So while the Select Board has tried to provide a way to make the will of the people known, clearly the Charter Commission doesn’t feel bound to listen.
That said, I believe that the idea of changing our form of Town government is something we should regularly consider.
Many residents of Plymouth have expressed a desire for change, and it is demeaning to them to suggest that their position is based on petty disputes and personalities, rather than a real recognition that we are now a Town of 62,000 residents with a need for more flexible and responsive representation.
I, for one, do not consider change a threat, it’s part of the natural democratic process. The people of Plymouth should have a voice in everything! But in this age of social media, it is easy for incorrect information or false statements to be spread anonymously.
I personally am very active on all our Social Media sites, because I believe it is a good way to connect with Town residents, something every elected official should do. But to be clear, the only information I or any other Select Board member posts about the Town comes from official statements made by the Town. It is public information.
Any suggestion that non-public information is being disclosed is simply untrue. This board is more transparent than any other previous board.
Still we have been criticized for our use of executive session. But that has been done solely to protect the interest of the Town, not ourselves. The laws regarding when executive session is to be used are set by the State, and at no time has this Board been found to have gone into executive session improperly. The Town has simply been engaged in more matters which require protected discussions.
The same holds true for redaction of the minutes of those executive sessions. Those redactions are performed by legal counsel, not by the board. Those attorneys represent the Town, and are ethically responsible for taking actions to protect the rights and interests of the Town. It is not for any member of the Board to waive those rights.
If someone has a concern with the redactions, there is a process set forth in the law that anyone can use to request additional information. If they are still not satisfied, they are free to try to change the laws that govern our actions.
Plymouth is an amazing community to live in, whether you are here full-time or part time; a longtime resident or new to the community. And everyone here has the same right to be heard, and to have their opinion matter.
That is the only function of government, and what the Select Board is striving for every day.
