Today's Top Story, unfortunately again

Blogger's Note:

With yesterday's early morning piece on the crying session Monday night at the Board of Selectmen (Suspended animation), I thought about perhaps taking the day off.  I also finally had a look at the proposed articles concerning government change for the Special Town Meeting last night.

Suffice it to say at this point there will be issues raised about all three articles, however the same will have to wait.

Before I get on to today's piece, I want to thank the three main players who made yesterday's piece possible.  In the 35 hours from 8:00 P.M. on Monday to 7:00 A.M. this morning, there have been over 530 page views for the blog.  For an extremely limited discussion site like this, not too shabby.

Moving on ...

The Standard Times has seemed to take a particular interest in a certain matter that came to the public eye a week ago today at the NFIA candidate's night.  On Tuesday, the paper had an article about the famous RISD letter (well famous among those paying attention, and perhaps the better term should be infamous).  Today, "we" make the editorial page because of the same.

First, the article in Tuesday's paper.

If in fact "we" work as a team in this town as suggested over and over again, it seems to be a very interesting team concept "we" have.

Quite novel really, when two members of a three member board feel compelled to take the affirmative step in writing to disavow the actions of the third.

Let me tell you, it could very well be that I am the one who is a bit off in the "team" concept.  It could very well be that I am the one who is simply a bit off.  If it is in fact "me", I am pretty glad I am.

The Chairman of the Board of Selectmen is quoted in Tuesday's article as saying,  "I think we need to take these things seriously".  

I would agree.  I would also wonder were was the effort on the "we" part.

Did the statement referenced in the article amount to a threat?  Is there more than just this particular statement? "We" don't know.  The immediate "we" consisting of the three members of the Board, apparently weren't part of any team decision or discussion about sending out such a letter on the Board's stationary.

Was the individual selectman's letter sent out before or after the police became involved?  If before, one has to ask why the need to send the letter before consulting with the police?  If after, based on the statements in the paper one also has to ask why after soliciting the opinion of law enforcement was one and only one selectman's opinion deemed proper in apparent contradiction to the opinion of law enforcement?

Why wasn't the "team" leadership consulted?  Hypothetically, are "we" to believe sending such a letter on selectmen stationary was of such an urgent nature as to justify the unilateral action of one board member, chair or not?

Let's hope this one ends simply with the decision of the state ethics committee.  

To be honest, I am not sure where there would be a violation of the the ethics laws, especially as at this point I am not privy to the actual complaint, and don't want to be quite frankly.  What I am aware of is the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen took it upon himself to send such a letter.  

The most significant aspect of the whole thing is how this one plays into that repeated use of the phrase "team".  From my view point, it is an example of what goes on as a rule of thumb, rather than an example of the exception to the rule.

Today's "Our View" in The Standard Times is absolutely correct in two specific statements.

The first, "We can understand how DeTerra might have interpreted Ferreira's language as menacing, but local police investigated and found that it did not constitute a physical threat." 

The second, "And a longtime public official like Bowcock should know that using his position to potentially undermine a private citizen's job is just plain wrong."

The article in Tuesday's paper, apparently quoting from the Selectboard Chair's letter:

"I am sure that your institution also has some type of policy that should limit the threatening emails that Mr. Ferreira disseminates," Bowcock wrote. "I bring this to your attention in the hopes that harassment charges will not need to be brought and your institution will not be required to appear in court.

"I believe Mr. Ferreira has every right to freedom of speech, but he has reached a point where his threats against the chairman of the Board of Health have become a police matter."

The obvious big problem.  The police did investigate, as the police tend to do when the police receive complaints. After investigation however the police determined that it was not a police matter.

Absent a vote of the entire board to do something beyond that, it was in fact wrong to use Town stationary for that letter.  If the statements made were subject to being interpreted as menacing, which I submit that a person to whom they were directed could in fact so interpret them to be; a letter on the Town's Board of Selectmen stationary signed by the board's chairman most definitely can be interpreted as an official action of the board, as it seems it apparently was so interpreted.

No individual selectman, except in very specific circumstances which I cannot even imagine come close to exiting in this situation, has the right to act on an individual basis.

It is that simple, and to steal a line from the editorial, it hardly seems necessary to say.