The Jan. 3 request from Independent reporter Fred Thys was a standard one: He wanted to speak to someone at Town Hall about a story. The response from communications coordinator Casey Kennedy was anything but standard.
“Per the Town Manager’s email to Mark [Pothier] a few weeks back, the Town has paused its relationship with the Plymouth Independent.”
Derek Brindisi, the town manager, on Dec. 22 directed “all appointed town officials to cease all communication with the PI,” except for public records requests (which they are required to respond to under state law). It’s the second time he has angrily issued such an order since October. What’s more, Brindisi, who answers to the Select Board, has taken to regularly assailing the Independent, claiming the 14-month-old nonprofit is out to disgrace and target town officials.
In emails to the Independent and Select Board members he has called the news site the “Plymouth Enquirer,” citing its “distasteful reporting,” and efforts to “humiliate town officials.”
The new ban on communications came a day after Brindisi sent a scathing Dec. 21 email addressed to “PI staff” and also sent to Select Board members, Kennedy, and several Independent board members.
Brindisi said he was particularly upset by two stories.
One concerned complaints from Copper Cove condo residents about what they said was chronic noise and rowdy behavior from young people in a nearby parking lot. The other was about the reasons behind mandated grease trap system upgrades for restaurants connected to the municipal sewer system.
Brindisi disputed parts of the Copper Cove story, saying he’s not sure whether his quotes were accurate because “neither I or [reporter] Andrea [Estes] was recording the 30 min conversation so it would be difficult to determine what the exact words were. One thing I do know, I never referred to the individuals who congregate in the parking lot as ‘teenagers.’”
The story did not report or imply that he referred to the young people as teenagers.
Estes’ story was posted on Dec. 18 and included a lengthy explanation of the steps the town took to address the condo owners’ concerns. Yet Brindisi’s complaint about it did not come until Dec. 21, after he was attacked online in social media forums.
Brindisi and Kennedy have also produced a podcast to dispute part of the Copper Cove story.
No doubt, the story generated distasteful and hateful comments online, some directed at Brindisi. There is no place for such vitriol. But we live in a time of extreme polarization. The Independent attempts to counteract this behavior by reporting and publishing news stories based on facts.
That was the reason behind the grease trap piece – it explained downtown restaurateurs’ concerns and presented the town’s reasons for the kitchen requirement.
In his Dec. 21 email, Brindisi took issue with at least one part of it – a sentence that said two restaurant owners did not want to talk on the record because they feared retaliation from town officials.
That’s not unusual. When someone does not want to be named in a story, we tell readers why. Typically, it is because the person is not authorized to speak publicly about an issue, or they fear retaliation. The story did not say any retaliation had taken place.
“Did you do any research to determine there was some evidence to suggest retaliation?” he wrote. “Or was it just another attempt to disgrace town officials? Was this really said to you? Who knows with the Plymouth Enquirer. Either way, the fact that you would print those words, is clearly your attempt to target town officials.”
To be clear, the Independent does not “target” anyone.
Of the five Select Board members, only Charlie Bletzer responded to Brindisi’s Dec. 21 email.
“You have my full support,” he wrote, referring to Brindisi.
“The pi is a disgrace with their irresponsible and unverified reporting.”
The other four board members have not spoken publicly about Brindisi’s actions against the Independent.
In a Dec. 22 email – the one in which Brindisi issued his order that town officials stop communicating with the Independent – he asked whether his conversation with Estes for the Copper Cove story had been recorded without his knowledge.
“Today I was informed that Mark not only stood by his public statement of my quote [in the Copper Cove story], he also told [a prominent local business owner] that my conversation with Andrea [Estes] was recorded,” he wrote. “If this is true, I am asking for a copy of the recording. Additionally, I am asking for my statement allowing and agreeing to be recorded.”
The conversation was not recorded. I did not tell anyone that it was. I did not even speak with the business owner about Estes’s reporting of the story. I do stand by it.
“Until this is resolved, I will be instructing all appointed town officials to cease all communication with the PI,” he continued, before citing “the PIs attempt to harm town officials.”
How it got to this point involves a lengthy backstory. Our relationship with Brindisi has been strained for many months.
He has repeatedly criticized what he deems “negative” reporting. For example, he told me our coverage of the Water Street sewer line project in late 2023 and 2024 focused on cost overruns, delays, building damage, and a lawsuit instead of the project’s environmental benefits. The project’s many issues were timely and newsworthy. The Independent did not exist when the work was proposed. Had it been, we would have covered that part of the process. Our stories were in response to requests from readers who wanted to know why Water Street was dug up for so long.
Brindisi’s persistent criticism fails to recognize the dozens of stories we have published about public board meetings and issues, as well as stories on officials and departments doing work that benefits the town and its residents, such as a recent piece on restoration work at Jenney Pond.
This is not the first – or second – time he has tried to interfere with the Independent’s reporting.
During a Select Board meeting last June, vice chair Kevin Canty said Brindisi had informed him that “there may be one or more persons recording audio without having announced it.” He was referring to Independent reporter Thys, who was using his phone to record the public meeting in plain sight a few feet from Brindisi. Canty told the audience that the recording violated a wiretapping statute and was “punishable” by jail time.
In a subsequent story about the incident, Justin Silverman, director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, told me, “It’s troubling any time a member of government threatens jail time against a journalist when they’re just simply doing their job.”
He said Thys was exercising his “First Amendment right to record public officials engaged in public duty in a public space.”
“You have a meeting that’s being live streamed and recorded. Certainly, there’s no expectation of privacy here,” he added. “One really needs to question what the intent was to make that threat of jail time. Was it to intimidate the journalist?”
Brindisi told me at the time that he simply wanted to point out a violation of the law.
(Canty and I later spoke about the incident. We both agreed it could have been handled better, perhaps with a simple request that Thys announce he was recording.)
Communications between the Independent remained tense after that, but later in the summer – thanks to the intervention of Canty – we began meeting with Brindisi and others at Town Hall to find a way forward. I was hesitant to hold such closed-door sessions with public officials, but decided it was worth a try in the interest of being able to more easily report the news.
Canty spent many hours trying to mend the rift. The monthly meetings he brokered included himself, PI staff, Brindisi, Kennedy, and others. (Select Board member Dick Quintal came to a couple of them.) There was continued disagreement on some fronts but also compromise. (For instance, town officials said we were sending too many emails to town employees and that sometimes the subject lines were not clear – an easy fix). The temperature in the room sometimes rose, but overall, the atmosphere was cordial. Because these meetings were off the record, I won’t go into details, but no one left in a huff.
The relationship soon took a turn for the worse. In an Oct. 11 email to two PI board members and Select Board members, Brindisi wrote: “I am bringing to your attention my ongoing frustration with Mark Pothier, Independent staff and their collective poor behavior. Since August, I have met with Mark et al, with town staff and [Select Board] members to find ways in which both parties can work in collaboration with one another. These meetings typically end with agreement on how to improve communications and how we expect to receive requests and how the Independent expects in turn to receive the information they are seeking. Unfortunately, what appeared to be partnership has quickly eroded because of the lack of commitment by Mark et al.”
He outlined what he called “rules of engagement” that dictated how we would be allowed to interact with town officials. He also mentioned a list of stipulations from Police Chief Dana Flynn, which included an onerous requirement that we submit questions in writing.
“Mark took exception to the Chief’s memo and refuses to comply. Even more concerning was a subsequent email where Mark threatens me with ‘You’re really forcing our hand here,’” Brindisi wrote in the Oct. 11 email.
That’s when Brindisi cut off communications with the Independent for the first time.
“I have grave concerns with the intent of this newspaper and have informed all town staff to no longer communicate with the Independent,” he wrote. “Additionally, I have communicated with other Town leaders who share the same level of frustration with the Independent and will likely follow a similar pattern as what I have chosen…We are no longer subscribing to the Independent’s sensationalized reporting wrought with negativity. This town has so many great things to offer and is moving in such a positive direction. The only problem is, no one knows it because of the distasteful reporting of the Independent.”
Canty again intervened. He had lengthy conversations with me and also met with Independent board member Walter V. Robinson.
The ban was lifted after we reluctantly agreed to follow town-written guidelines for seeking information, on a trial basis. I say “reluctantly” because, in my view, there should not be a need for cumbersome ground rules. We’re always interested in including town officials in stories related to local government. In my career, I’ve never been asked to adhere to such a list of stipulations, by businesses – public and private – or government entities. It’s not hard to have a conversation.
As for Flynn, he was particularly unhappy with a November column and followup piece I wrote about the number of drivers running through red lights, according to Brindisi and Canty. Flynn refused to speak with me for that first column and insisted on answering a half dozen questions only by email. I included his vague responses, which raised more questions. Through Kennedy, however, the chief said he would not answer any additional queries.
After the second column – which included criticism of him from readers for refusing to speak with me – he canceled a scheduled meeting with the Independent’s staff. Flynn still won’t speak to anyone from the PI.
Our job as journalists is to hold government officials accountable and to provide readers with the reliable information they need to foster a functioning democracy. In that respect, the relationship between governments and journalists is necessarily adversarial. We’re supposed to be skeptical of people in power.
Officials, paid public professionals, and Town Meeting members make decisions involving policies and spending that inevitably spark debate. They serve in the public’s interest. The Independent reports on them in the public’s interest.
Before the PI arrived, most Plymouth residents – including myself – had a hard time finding out what was going on in town. Perhaps naively, I figured officials would welcome the chance to present the town’s perspective on important issues. Some have – or did until this latest order to stop talking to us. Brindisi, however, has only reached out to express displeasure with our coverage.
Before joining the Boston Globe in 2001, I was editor of the Old Colony Memorial for 15 years. Occasionally, the paper clashed with local officials. Not one of them attempted to impede our work on behalf of the public.
I reject any notion that the Independent is irresponsible or inaccurate. The board stands behind me on this, as – I hope – do many thousands of readers who come to the site every day.
I did not relish writing this column. But you need to know about the efforts of Plymouth’s top paid official to muzzle the Independent.
In my decades as a journalist, Brindisi’s blanket edict is like nothing I have ever encountered. Can you imagine Governor Maura Healey directing state employees not to communicate with the Boston Globe as a way of expressing her displeasure with coverage? It would not stand for long.
No official in a position of power should withhold or dispense information of interest to the public based on whether they like or dislike a story, a reporter, or a publication.
Out of fairness, I reached out to Brindisi on Monday to tell him about this column, and to offer him a chance to talk with me about his grievances. I hoped that he had cooled off. The email exchange that ensued was discouraging.
“Without knowing what you will write or how you will counter my statements, it would be difficult to write anything that would not get twisted by the Independent,” he wrote.
I responded, “I won’t send you it in advance if that’s what you mean. The gist of it is fairly simple: We don’t agree with much of what you wrote/allege, especially the ideas that we are out to harm town officials, and that we misquote them or use quotes out of context. But I will include the substance of your complaints, without getting so deep into the weeds that readers get confused…I’m sorry it’s come to this.”
His reply: “If you need to apologize in advance of an article that you haven’t even written, one would think it will be written in the same negative context as other articles where you and your staff disparage or try to humiliate town officials. Its best you proceed without my involvement.”
And then this coda: “You can add that to your story.”
Mark Pothier can be reached at mark@plymouthindependent.org.