News and events in Southborough, MA

Earlier this month, two members of the public accused the Board of Selectmen of not being transparent about issues related to past Town Meetings. One resident voiced upset that board actions appeared to be behind the scenes attempts to undermine a vote by residents. (The board’s involvement/intent was later rebutted by the Chair.)* Another was upset by vague communications around BOS actions on Town Meeting Warrants – including agendas and untimely minutes with gaps.

Both issues were raised during public comment at the November 7th Board of Selectmen meeting.

[Editor’s Note: This news is a bit dated. In looking at the agenda for tonight’s Board of Selectmen meeting, I realized that I never finished watching the last one. When I did, I discovered there was more to follow up on.]

Marnie Hoolahan confronted the board about its purported attempt to undermine voters’ decision to pass an Article to enforce regulations on the Zoning Board of Appeals. She told selectmen that she felt betrayed by what she discovered. The accusation was based on post-Town Meeting communications between the Town and Attorney General’s office.

In actions not discussed at public meetings, attorneys for the Town have been submitting arguments to the Attorney General’s office opposing Article 1 passed at Special Town Meeting in May.

Hoolahan asked the board why communications decisions were made and by who and why it wasn’t discussed in public meeting. At the November 7th meeting, Chair Lisa Braccio said that she wasn’t prepared to answer. She asked Hoolahan to submit a letter.

In a subsequent response, Braccio took responsibility for initial communications with the AG’s office this summer. She said that in hindsight she would have brought it to a public meeting for discussion. But she asserted that there was no attempt to undermine the Article, just to give the AG full context. In her defense, she points out that she personally voted in favor of the Article.

A letter from Town Counsel Aldo Cipriano indicates that attorneys acted on their own to send communications to the AG this fall defending their opposition to the Article.

Last May, Article 1 sought to enforce regulations for the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Article specified ZBA quorum and process regarding conflict of interest.

Prior to the vote, special legal counsel for the Town advised that some of the language was legally problematic. Hoolahan was the point person behind the Citizen’s Petition Article. She shared some rebutting comments by counsel she had retained. She also pointed out that the language would need to be vetted by the Attorney General’s office. If there were any issues, the AG would be responsible for working that out. (You can read my recap of arguments here.)

An amended version of the Article overwhelmingly passed. That meant that the passed Article was to be submitted to the AG’s office for approval. After learning that the AG was asking for extra time to rule on the article, Hoolahan started digging. She found out that the Town took a month to submit materials to the AG. She submitted a public records request to the AG. The results showed her that the Town submitted opposing concerns of special counsel but not rebutting opinions by the attorney representing the Citizen Petition Article sponsors.

The AG’s office told her Hoolahan could submit her attorney’s opinion, so she did. Based on that submission, Special Counsel Talerman responded with more arguments and Town Counsel (who had previously recused himself from commenting) writes that he was “compelled” to weigh in with his own letter to the AG arguing against the article.

In her letter to the board, Hoolahan states:

The appointed Town Administrator, the appointed Town Counsel, and some members of the elected Board of Selectmen have acted in direct opposition to the will of the citizens.

The Attorney General has the authority to disapprove a bylaw only if it is in conflict with a state law or provision of the Constitution. Unfortunately, one or several town officials have collaborated to attempt to influence the Attorney General’s review of Article 1. . . . [click to keep reading…]

{ 2 comments }