Readers continue to react to the Jan. 10 column from Independent editor Mark Pothier about Town Manager Derek Brindisi’s attempt to muzzle our reporting. Here’s a sampling of the most recent letters we’ve received. For more reader opinions on the subject, go here.
If you’ve got something to say about this or anything else related to Plymouth, email letters@plymouthindependent.org.
Plymouth Town Manager Derek Brindisi’s recent directive, instructing all appointed officials to cease communications with the Plymouth Independent, has stirred understandable concern within the community. By calling the publication the “Plymouth Enquirer” and “distasteful,” Brindisi cites “negative” reporting and the “targeting” of him and others as justification for this measure.
While local government leaders often strive to maintain a unified, coherent message on complex or controversial matters, it is essential to remember that appointed officials do not relinquish their First Amendment rights simply because of an authoritarian edict. Restricting these individuals from speaking freely raises significant questions about balancing the need for consistent information with foundational principles of transparency and free expression.
One-sided or fragmented communication can lead to misinterpretations and uncertainty among residents. An open approach to media relations helps ensure factual accuracy. It can protect the town from the fallout of inaccurate or misleading statements.
Forbidding all external communication risks undermining public trust, mainly if it appears that officials are withholding vital information or viewpoints. Any blanket edict to silence appointed officials may conflict with their rights to express opinions and share relevant insights on public matters. Overly restrictive government policies can diminish the exchange of ideas essential to civic engagement.
Ultimately, Town Manager Brindisi’s goal of limiting communication may overlook the constitutional liberties afforded to public servants. A strategy emphasizing clarity, coordination, and factual rigor—rather than outright prohibition—could deliver consistent, accurate information while preserving the core democratic values of openness and free speech.
– Antonio Martinez
I regularly read PI’s articles, and I find them informative and well-written. I’m not reading them in order to pick sides or point fingers but rather to know what’s happening in our community. I feel it’s important as a member of our community and a taxpayer to be informed.
It is really unfortunate that the relationship with town officials has become contentious, and this situation doesn’t serve our community well. Having worked in both the public and private sector over the years, and for the past fifteen years as a freelance court reporter, I understand there are always different points of view to consider.
By having an opportunity to hear all viewpoints of a situation – good, bad, or otherwise – and be provided with facts, can we form a basis for our opinions.
I hope that the relationship and communications between the PI and our town officials will be resolved sooner than later. In the meantime, I’ll continue reading your articles.
– Debb Knopf
I just wanted to express my appreciation for your reporting with the Plymouth Independent. It’s important to me to have responsible and editorially independent sources for information and your hard work and professionalism is endlessly impressive. Thank you very much for all the hard work you do, please keep it up.
– Josh Byrnes
As a Town Meeting member, I oppose Derek Brindisi’s attempts to curb First Amendment rights to free speech by banning communications with Plymouth Independent. Town government does a lot of good for Plymouth, and PI does a good job of covering what is going on in our community. Banning communications with the media creates greater division between government and the people it’s supposed to represent, which erodes public trust and civility and makes it more difficult for government to be effective. I ask Mr. Brindisi to consider lifting the ban and figuring out how to work more effectively with all media.
– Beth Gragg
The town manager’s responses mean you must be doing your job! Keep on!
– Virginia “Ginny” Murray
It is indeed very sad and disturbing when public officials seek to quiet the voice of journalists whether it is because they disagree with content of coverage or face ridicule for their conduct.
The Plymouth Independent does indeed do an amazing an honest job.
– Sheila Dwyer
We’ve lived in Plymouth for about 45 years. Our children and grandchildren have gone through the public schools. We are part of this community. We subscribed to the Old Colony Memorial. We stopped it years ago due to lack of content. This week we bought one for a specific article. Other than that article we were reminded of why we stopped the OCM. I have found our town officials to be non-responsive with a few exceptions. I’ve read the articles in the Independent. I found them concerning but not offensive to anyone. If not the Independent, where would our town manager suggest we get our information? He is wrong in this and so was our chief of police.
– Jane Mauro
Since its arrival last year, the PI has been a breath of fresh air for all of us. Mr. Brindisi (and some members of the Select Board) appear to be the only ones who thought the PI articles referenced by Mark Pothier had any slanderous intent. To forbid public official communication with PI is more than just an overreaction, it’s paranoia and evidence of severe insecurity by those who allege mistreatment. What a silly response by highly paid professionals who should know better. Plymouth needs more, not less, communication and dialogue among government officials, journalists, and the press. Perhaps Mr. Brindisi and others could start the new conversation by explaining why the 2025 real estate tax bills residents recently received increased so significantly with little advance notice.
– David Friend
Dear Mr. Brindisi,
Your order that all appointed town officials cease all communication with the Plymouth Independent is downright wrong and counter to the 1st Amendment as it calls on our elected officials to limit freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is the right and duty of journalists and news publications to report freely and inform the public of current issues that may impact their lives. In Plymouth that includes the important workings of our town government.
Your maligning the Plymouth Independent as the “Plymouth Enquirer,” claiming “distasteful reporting,” and efforts to “humiliate town officials” because you were offended by social media responses to your order tells us a lot about you and your fragile ego. Maybe you’re in the wrong line of work if you can’t handle the public discourse that is part of being a public servant.
Democracy dies in the darkness.
– Heidi Mayo