On Tuesday night, the Stewardship Committee’s chair publicly expressed frustration that the Select Board reneged on a promise to readdress this week an issue it created three weeks ago.
Apparently, the board plans to now wait until their August 11th meeting to discuss whether to adjust Stewardships charge to allow a longtime member to continue her service.
In June, the Select Board blocked reappointing Freddie Gillespie to the Open Space Preservation Commission. That blocked her ability to continue serving as OSPC’ representative on the Stewardship Committee.
Based on Gillespie’s valuable knowledge and contributions, Stewardship members pled for the board to find a way to appoint her to the otherwise fully seated committee.
Since it is an ad hoc committee, the Select Board could vote to convert the OSPC designated seat to an at-large seat. Alternatively, one at-large member volunteered to step down from her seat if the board would be willing to appoint Gillespie to it.
Some Select Board members had expressed support for Gillespie continuing to serve on Stewardship. At the time, Chair Kathy Cook said the board would continue to discuss the issue at their next meeting, which was scheduled for this past Tuesday, July 7th.
The item wasn’t included on the July 7th agenda. But it was raised through public comments at the start of the meeting. Chair Joyce Greenleaf read aloud her letter to the board, unanimously supported by her committee. It noted her disappointment about the item not being on the agenda. And she noted that the Conservation Commission unanimously voted to send a letter fully supporting her committee’s positions.
Stewardship asked for the following actions from the Select Board:
- A change in Stewardship’s designated membership by removing the Open Space Preservation Commission Seat and replacing it with an At-Large seat;
- Appointing Freddie Gillespie to that At-Large seat; and,
- Maintaining Stewardship’s current mission without change.
The letter from ConCom to the board made similar requests. But it also offered the alternative option of simply reappointing Gillespie to the OSPC so that she could continue in the dedicated seat. And the letter restated their firm stance that the OSPC and Stewardship should not be merged.
Studying the possibility of merging the committees was one reason that some Select Board members had given for not reappointing Gillespie to her position on the OSPC. That committee is currently without a quorum to continue its work. And its not clear if the board will address that issue on August 11th.
A second public comment was made by resident Paul Carter, who also advocated for the committees to remain separate and for Gillespie to continue serving on both.
(Scroll down for more on the Cook’s limited and hot mic statements about the issues on Tuesday night.)
Statements from Stewardship and ConCom
The Stewardship Committee’s letter included their argument for the importance of Gillespie’s role:
As I have shared previously, Freddie is a critical member of the Stewardship Committee. The Stewards are in the midst of major projects that benefit enormously from Freddie’s input and experience. For example, we are battling new invasives (Callery pear and creeping buttercup) that Freddie identified. They require management, involving coordinating with multiple contractors to employ the most effective management techniques. Freddie’s knowledge has helped Stewardship and ensured our invasives management plan, now being developed by an expert, address these before they become larger and more costly problems.
Other projects underway that I have shared previously include establishing the new roadside meadow, restoring the farm dump area to meaningful habitat, and repairing the Beecology meadow that incurred significant damage from the farm dump contractors. Freddie’s expertise is key to progress on all.
Furthermore, Stewardship’s effectiveness will be undermined without Freddie, and Breakneck Hill Conservation Land will suffer. Breakneck Hill has become a major destination for nature lovers, photographers, birders, dog owners, and butterfly clubs, among others, because of its beauty and the habitat it provides. That habitat did not happen by accident, it was through Freddie’s expertise and stewardship—redressing the aftermath of its agricultural history, introducing desirable native species, and managing invasives. The Select Board should celebrate and promote those accomplishments! And Freddie’s attributes (commitment, expertise, passion, time) should be valued by the Select Board in a volunteer.
ConCom’s longer letter included:
With over 21 ‘official’ years of experience managing BHCL, Ms. Gillespie is an invaluable wealth of knowledge, skill, and volunteer power. In her tenure, Ms. Gillespie has overseen and spearheaded projects at Breakneck Hill such as managing a ginormous bittersweet infestation, many other invasive species removal projects, creation of Pollinator Meadows and Research Gardens to work with Dr. Gegear to promote biodiversity and native pollinator health and habitat, creating and managing grasslands, upkeep of fields, managing trails, updating signage, woodland management, public education and activities, and many more.
If the Select Board would like to discuss making changes to the designated seats, then the Commission recommends and approves changing the Open Space Preservation Commission designated seat to an at-large member, but to fill that seat by appointing Freddie Gillespie. Ms. Gillespie’s decades of experience managing the property is integral to continuing the management and protection of BHCL. Loss of this volunteer and powerhouse would deeply hinder the Committee’s current and upcoming projects and ability to network to find contractors and qualified professionals. . .
The Select Board’s Appointment Policy posted on the website and approved on October 17, 2017, states that incumbent members, especially those “which involve a significant amount of time in service to become a knowledgeable and useful member, present members will be given every consideration if they desire to be appointed.” The policy further outlines the general requirements of those serving the town in that they should:
- Be people of competence, good will and sound, objective judgment;
- Be drawn from new and long-time residents alike;
- Be truly interested in the welfare of Southborough and all its residents;
- Be sensitive to the long-term as well as the immediate impact of their decisions and recommendations;
- Be willing and able to devote the time and energy necessary to fulfill their responsibilities.
The policy states that the Select Board encourages volunteers to come forward to let their interests be known, which conflicts with some of the statements listed within the last Select Board meeting on why Ms. Gillespie was not to be reappointed.
You can read the full letter here.
ConCom Reaction to Select Board’s June Decision
On June 25th, Greenleaf sought ConCom’s support of Stewardship’s positions. The meeting was led by Vice Chair Ben Smith.1 Coincidentally, Smith was also Chair of the Community Preservation Commission two years ago when the Select Board previously opted to not reappoint two representatives he passionately supported.
In last month’s meeting, Smith spoke about a pattern in the board’s decision making that that upset him. He believed the decisions were meant to root people who publicly voice opinions at odds with those of the board :
I think this is harmful to the town. I think the town is there’s a broad diversity of opinion within our community. It’s important that all voices get heard. And I will say that as a volunteer, no person contemplating volunteering for the town sits at home thinking, you know what I really want to do is I want to volunteer to enact the exact agenda of the Select Board and keep my mouth shut about everything else. That’s not how it works. We we get involved as volunteers because we want to help . . . our community and we feel like we have valuable ideas and input to share. And to see that shouted down, it makes me worry a great deal about potential volunteers here in town, especially seeing what happens when somebody does speak out.
He described the board’s discussions about blocking the reappointments as volunteers being “publicly pilloried”. He said it was difficult to watch.
Smith also decried the Select Board’s repeat attempt to consolidate OSPC and Stewardship. He said their reasons “completely escape me”. He followed that it made as much sense as combining the Council on the Arts with the Board of Health. It was a point he thought ConCom had made clear last year.
Other members of ConCom didn’t specifically comment, but they showed unanimous support for his position and the described letter that Conservation Agent Melissa Danza would submit on their behalf.
Select Board Chair’s Cautious (and Hot Mic) Comments on Tuesday
Prior to the public comment, Cook stated that public comments wouldn’t be responded to because they aren’t on the agenda. Following the comments, neither Cook or anyone else on the board addressed the speakers or spoke on the topic.2 Over two hours later, under Reports, Cook said the topic would be on the August 11th agenda. She noted that she had told Greenleaf that prior to the start of the meeting.
Soon after, audio that continue to broadcast during a meeting recess captured Cook answering a question about the issue. Carter approached asking if the board had flexibility to “deal with Freddie”. Cook told him she couldn’t “say too much”. After trying to ensure her comments weren’t captured by the video feed, Cook told Carter:
There’s so much more this story than you know. And I don’t know where we’re going to end up we are going to put this on the agenda.
When Carter asked her if the topic would be the two committees. Right before the audio from the broadcast meeting was cut, she responded that “it’s not that easy to do” since OSPC is in the Town bylaws.
- Chair Mark Possemato attended the meeting, but had asked Smith to run it since he was not feeling well.
- The lack of exchange with the commenters was notable. In most meetings, the strict “no reply” disclaimer isn’t given. The board has had a history of making some limited replies to many commenters, while still avoiding Open Meeting Law issues. If the board no longer feels free to have even light dialogue about a topic being scheduled for a future meeting, that would be a new development.
