I want to fully endorse a recent opinion piece by Jenny Healy. My experience in witnessing, as well as interacting with, Plymouth town government is consistent with her observations, and I will go on to say that the way the Select Board speaks to the citizens that they are meant to serve is patronizing, dismissive, rude, and unprofessional. I would like to add that I have noticed that they especially speak this way to women and/or female-presenting people.
Over the summer of 2024, I witnessed a really unprofessional display in the way Charlie Bletzer and the Select Board interacted with restaurant owner Erin Murphy. I remember my jaw dropping at the way they were talking down to her with such disrespect, in a way that was unnecessary to the conversation and jarring to watch. At the time, I wondered if they had any self-awareness that they are a committee of older white men, and that they seem to favor the speech of those that look like them. This pattern seems repeated with their current treatment of Meg Sheehan, a lawyer deserving of respectful, professional treatment from the Select Board.
The Select Board further seems to have a problem when diverse groups of people, using our free speech rights to participate in our government, attend meetings and add public comment. There have long been complaints that young people don’t engage with smalltown politics. However, what I have witnessed, is when the engagement from the community is high and on a subject the Board disagrees with (or have vested interests in the outcome) the Select Board seeks to dominate, condescend, and silence the conversation from the citizens they serve.
There was the threat to end public comment after it was used to advocate against development at 71 Hedges Pond Road by a more diverse group of citizens than usually attends town meetings, which should be celebrated and encouraged. Instead, the broader representation of the Plymouth community was met with disdain and annoyance, and a threat to our speech.
This pattern, unfortunately, appears pervasive in other boards as well. For instance, as mentioned in previous articles, Michael Main, the chair of the ZBA, interrupted the one indigenous young woman that spoke, while allowing at least two older white men to go over their allotted time.
I was also at a meeting where the Select Board was asking some uniformed questions of the treasurer when it was clear they had not done the reading on the topic, which was on a new law that enabled towns to be more flexible in their investing. When she attempted to correct their clear misunderstanding and explain the questions they were asking were not related to the topic, she was met with scolding from the board, despite the fact that they were clearly misunderstanding the topic at hand and had not done their homework. (One board member asked if the treasurer herself could now invest the town’s money in penny stocks, which showed he had not read the new law in preparation for her presentation.) Instead, they insinuated she did not have enough information, instead of admitting they hadn’t yet read the law.
The glaring lack of diversity across every measure on both the Select Board and the ZBA needs to be part of the conversation when we talk about the way they interact with certain members of our community. They need to be aware that in some matters they may form their own echo-chamber and demonstrate unconscious biases to some members of our community, as it seems fairly apparent from this observer’s standpoint.
As a person raising a family in this community, I really hope engagement continues despite the discouraging behavior from town officials. I also hope that we can seek a government that truly represents the people it serves and treats all people as worthy of a voice in this community, as it should be in “America’s Hometown.”
– Meagan Ash