A Double Standard
There was a time when it was expected that those in government at any level – municipal, state, federal – would behave with courtesy and decency ― with what our grandparents would have called good manners. It involved not just courtesy when we spoke to each other but accuracy and honesty in our statements. It meant listening to those who elected or appointed us and giving their views and positions serious consideration. It meant giving immediate attention to a petition submitted by a town’s residents.
While these standards may no longer exist on the federal level, there was reason to hope that at least in some states and municipalities the norms would still apply. Belmont, a smaller municipality, where the gap between citizens, employees and officials is narrow is a place where that should be the case. There should be no need to tell any elected, appointed or salaried official that they have an obligation to speak politely, to take their constituents seriously, to refrain from mocking them and to be meticulously accurate in their presentations and comments.
Apparently, these standards are no longer true of Belmont. On May 23rd at a Select Board Meeting, two Select Board members saw fit to mock, tear down and distort the words and actions of residents whose homes abut the DPW yard. What was their crime? Consulting an attorney after last year’s impassioned Town Meeting debate about replacing the existing below ground fuel tanks with new fuel tanks above ground and submitting his letter to them to supplement the materials that would be considered before they voted. According to Adam Dash, the letter, written by a member of Boston’s leading and oldest environmental law firm, was “silly,” hogwash” and “ridiculous.” He apparently believes that this makes Lisa Otieri as well as Judith and Robert Sarno guilty of having intended to sue the town for at least a year; nothing in the attorney’s letter or the comments of Ms. Otieri and Mr. and Ms. Sarno says anything about a suit.
This is scarcely the first time residents have consulted attorneys about actions the town has taken or may take that will affect them. It is not the first time they have consulted attorneys about actions that developers may take where the town may be involved to some extent. Only a few years ago, Frank French’s attorney presented Mr. French’s position on a warrant article he had submitted on the floor of Town Meeting. During the protracted negotiations over what is now The Bradford, Cushing Square residents had occasion to be accompanied by their attorney who sometimes spoke on their behalf. The same holds true for the recent Beatrice Circle 40B negotiations. In none of these cases, were members of the Select Board offended by the fact that residents had sought legal advice. In none of them, were the residents accused of extortion as Mr. Epstein did Monday night.
The difference appears to be that in other situations where the Select Board has been involved, its members have been supportive of or working with the residents. In this particular case, Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dash supported the original effort to replace the below ground tanks with huge, above ground tanks. Thus, at least as of last year, they had a different opinion than the residents did.
A Select Board member who will vote on a report about a given issue, has an obligation not to comment until the report is presented and made available to the public. Nevertheless, Mr. Epstein, lobbied for above ground tanks on his Facebook page using the comments he made last year before the Clancy Report was issued, thus showing that he had no intention of being impartial. (See “Protecting the Fuel Tank Process,” posted on If I May, https://www.facebook.com/jfeinleib, on May 12th.)
Mr. Dash, a practicing attorney, apparently thinks that consulting a lawyer when one might be faced with governmental action, is improper. Surely, Mr. Dash has clients who have looked to his knowledge and expertise so that they know what remedies might be available to them. Surely, there are instances where he has written letters for these clients which they have then used to support their positions. And surely, he does not expect the recipients of these letters, be they members of a governmental body or private citizens, to call them offensive.
What this says is that at least two Select Board members have no problem with the use of attorneys by residents when they agree with their positions as happened with the Beatrice Circle negotiation or when they can work out a compromise as happened with Mr. French’s amendment. They do have a problem when attorneys are consulted by residents who may not or do not agree with them.
That’s called having a double standard. Double standards are unacceptable. In this case, a double standard has been used to demean residents and distort what they said. Let’s be clear. The comments made by the residents and their attorney were well stated, factual and respectful. There was no threat to sue nor any attempt at extortion. An apology is what good manners dictate but alas, an apology is not likely to be forthcoming.
As if that were not enough, by concentrating on the letter, the Select Board members, including the Chair, ignored a far more significant submission. They ignored a petition signed by some 229 residents (and growing) from all eight Belmont precincts supporting the prohibition of any above ground fuel tanks in Belmont.
