Share This Article
During the first meeting of the Select Board’s Liberty Ledge/Sewataro subcommittee, member Dan Carty voiced a desire to eliminate public comment from the subcommittee’s agendas. Member Janie Dretler opposed that idea, and the two agreed to take it back to the full Select Board for a final decision.
On Tuesday, January 20, the Select Board had a robust discussion about the matter. While Carty and Dretler cited examples of subcommittees that had or did not have public comment, it was ultimately the rest of the board that would resolve the impasse.
During the discussion, Carty expressed that the subcommittee could not do anything with the public comments it received because the comments were opinions, and the subcommittee was tasked with gathering existing information about the property, not opinions. Dretler expressed her desire to maximize transparency with the public.
Member Charlie Russo took another angle, suggesting that public comments were selective input. “I think that we had a long discussion at our last meeting about the importance of transparency and not having a committee of two actually set policy. And I think, you know, we were unanimous on that, that we wanted the policy to come from the five of us. So to have selective input, right, that’s kind of what this is turning into. If there’s public comment there, that’s selective input. And that definitely has the appearance or the actuality of swaying members with information that’s not available to other members. So to me that’s not transparent.” (4:12:25)
The subcommittee has not attempted to create policy, has no authority to set policy, and the meetings are both open to the public and recorded on SudburyTV. Anyone, including Select Board members, have the ability to hear every public comment in its totality.
Member Radha Gargeya argued that the subcommittee had the ability to control the way they do public comment, that the Sewataro topic was subject of significant public interest, and that members of the public might remind subcommittee members of information that already exists that they might agree should be included in their report. He noted that opinions from members of the public could be heard, but that did not require them to take any action on them, or even respond to them.
Carty later acknowledged that the choice to do public comment has varied across subcommittees over the years and Dretler pointed to the recommendation from the Open Meeting Law to allow public comment as a best practice.
Dretler was accurate in her characterization of guidance from the State. The Division of Open Government within the Office of the Attorney General states in an FAQ about the Open Meeting Law “Although the Open Meeting Law does not require public bodies to allow public comment during meetings, we encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit. In addition, we note that the Supreme Judicial Court explained that content-based restrictions on public comment may violate the portion of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protecting the right to assemble and the right to free speech. See Barron v. Kolenda, 491 Mass. 408 (2023).” (Source)
Chair Lisa Kouchakdjian added that public comment is offered at the discretion of the committee, but supported having public comment. Carty interjected:
“To me, honestly it’s just an opportunity to give a small subset of people another avenue with a microphone, that we’re not going to do anything with that information anyways. So Lisa, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we’re fully at the discretion not to do it, and for something as emotionally charged as this, I don’t know why we would invite it, quite honestly.”
Dretler was accurate in her characterization of guidance from the State. The Division of Open Government within the Office of the Attorney General states in an FAQ about the Open Meeting Law “Although the Open Meeting Law does not require public bodies to allow public comment during meetings, we encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit. In addition, we note that the Supreme Judicial Court explained that content-based restrictions on public comment may violate the portion of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protecting the right to assemble and the right to free speech. See Barron v. Kolenda, 491 Mass. 408 (2023).” (Source)
Soon thereafter Dretler made a motion for the subcommittee to keep public comment, and that motion passed 3-2, with Dretler, Kouchakdjian and Gargeya voting in favor, while Carty and Russo voted against the motion.
The next meeting of the Liberty Ledge/Sewataro Subcommittee is expected to be held next week, as the committee is trying to meeting in between each full Select Board meeting. You can track their agenda and materials on their web page here.