(Scott Laugenour — continuing to model how government should serve we, the people. – promoted by eli_beckerman)

At Lenox Town Meeting on May 2, 2013 article 19 on the Town Meeting warrant invited public discussion on the legal costs of defending a Scenic Mountain Act appeal that a Lenox citizens group has filed.  I am not a party to this particular appeal but I spoke in support of the right of citizens and businesses to appeal to a higher authority when they believe that basic practices of openness, transparency, and integrity have been violated.  I voted NO on the article, which passed by a voice vote.

Here is the prepared text that I prepared for the town meeting.  The actual speech delivered may be slightly different by a few words or clause changes made during verbal delivery but the message is the same.

Citizens, businesses, and associations have a right to appeal to a higher authority when they believe that government has not acted openly, transparently, or rightly.  This article is really asking us how much we desire the town to defend the appeal.

I have the honor of serving Lenox on boards and committees.

For board and committee members there are standards of service, openness and transparency.

Board members are not volunteers.  They are elected or appointed, take an oath, and have responsibilities.

Boards operate under the Open Meeting Law.

Committee members must reject requests to keep documents, ideas, or proposals discussed and voted upon at a public meeting ‘confidential.’

Same goes for documents that are presented at committee meetings.  These are public and must be available to anyone.  They must be filed at town hall and not in a private residence.

If anyone asks me about what happened at a meeting of a committee on which I serve or what documents were reviewed I tell them and facilitate the sharing those public documents.

If someone couldn’t make the meeting date or didn’t know the meeting date. I would tell them what happened at the meeting and make sure they had access to the minutes- just as if they were at the meeting.

It’s churlish and disrespectful to admonish those asking legitimate questions of a past meeting by retorting:  “Well, if you want to know what happened at the meeting you’d better look at the bulletin board attend the meeting.”

The citizens group started asking questions about how the Kennedy Park Belvedere went from being a ‘ten-word plaque’ to an imposing concrete monument.

The citizens determined that the basic practices of integrity, openness, and transparency that I just outlined were violated.  They believed that the Scenic Mountain Act, which was passed here at Town Meeting, was violated.  The law told them what their rights were and they exercised those rights.

I can understand why the citizens group has made the appeal it has despite the sometimes ugly scorn the group has received from some on town boards and committees and some members of the public.

I vote NO on this article because the costs of pursuing a defense before a higher authority will cost more than $18,000.  A YES vote gives a blank check to the Select Board for a higher amount.  I vote NO to send the message that I’m not willing to condone a the Select Board’s refusal to raise the bar on service standards and to compromise.