Depends on Your Definition of Discussion.
By Jim Conley • May 31st, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Remember that June 5th hearing into what happened at the ZBA/Brookline Police after-party a week ago today? You know, the hearing that Town Meeting Moderator Sandy Gadsby implied would be held when he said:
“…I have spoken to the Chair of the BOS and he has assured me that issues relating to the ZBA hearing and its aftermath will be included on the agenda for a forthcoming regular meeting of the Selectmen. Given that the Selectmen appoint the ZBA and act as our Police Commissioners, that meeting would be a far more appropriate forum than Town Meeting for a constructive discussion of the unfortunate events of last week.”
Never mind.
Town Administrator Richard Kelliher tells me today that during Tuesday’s agenda item on the matter, “the Police Chief will present a report to the (Selectmen) and review the standing policy that governs the process by which rights and remedies relative to complaints concerning police actions are investigated.” That’s it.
It seems to me that a primer on the citizen complaint process is a lot different than that which the Moderator represented to Brookline Town Meeting in his e-mail.
The actions of the police are only half at issue here. What about ZBA Member Lawrence Kaplan’s actions? Is the Board, as appointing authority, interested in his conduct? (Knowing this Board of Selectmen, they’re probably looking for a way to give Kaplan a “blanket waiver” from having to comport himself in a dignified manner before the public.)
Gadsby’s e-mail is a classic Brookline bait and switch… imply that a hearing will be held to keep the hoi polloi restful, and then morph the “discussion” into a marginally relevant presentation by a town officer.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
To clarify some of my earlier comments on this brouhaha, I refer to the Norfolk District Attorney’s booklet entitled “Understanding the Open Meeting Law” which is available at:
http://www.state.ma.us/da/norfolk/openmeetinglaw.html
that includes the following statement:
“Contrary to popular belief, the Open Meeting Law provides no general right for a member of the public to address a governmental body. In some circumstances, other laws, municipal charters, or regulations provide a right of the public to speak, and the body may of its own accord afford such a right. A member of the public may not speak during a meeting without the permission of the presiding officer. If, after a warning from the presiding officer, the person persists in disorderly conduct, the presiding officer may order the disruptive person to leave. If the disruptive person refuses to leave, a constable or police officer may remove him or her. G.L. c.39, section 23C.”
As noted in an earlier comment, the ZBA meeting/hearing had concluded. Kaplan was not serving as the presiding officer in any event. This started between Ruthann Sneider and Lawrence Kaplan, with Arthur Conquest coming to the former’s rescue, according to TAB reports. This was NOT witnessed by the police, who had been called apparently by someone associated with the Town government presumably at the suggestion of Kaplan who apparently perceived Conquest as a threat.
On their arrival at Town Hall, the police encountered Conquest first. Later, they escorted Kaplan from Town Hall presumably to the safety of his car.
This is a classic “he said/she said.” It does not appear that Kaplan had been bloodied or otherwise visibly injured. Now in a domestic setting, when the police are called to a home because of a domestic dispute, the police are limited in what they can do as they have not witnessed the event. If the police detect signs that one of the parties has been abused, then they may take action even though they did not witness the event. Otherwise, the police serve the public by indicating to the parties what their rights are, such as going to court and filing a complaint against the other party; of course the police can “suggest” that the parties avoid escalating the situation and further suggest a voluntary separation.
In the Town Hall the situation was not like the domestic scene just described. The police seem to have overreacted, perhaps because the call came from someone associated with Town government. But what was the evidence that suggested to the police that Conquest may have been the one at fault? The police directive to Conquest seems out of order under the circumstances. Conquest is well known in the community. Hopefully the BOS will hold a hearing, permitting public comment to air out the matter fully.
By the way, it is purported that six (6) police officers responded to Town Hall. I wonder what the caller said that resulted in so many police responding. In a domestic dispute such as described above, usually one or two officers show up. Perhaps this had to do with the proximity of Town Hall to police headquarters on anotherwise dull evening, or perhap what the caller said. Aren’t such calls recorded?
“The Great Gadsby” might make a good novel. But the Man in the White Suit Tom Wolfe already did “A Bonfire of the Vanities” and “A Man in Full” that might leave little room left for Sandy the Moderator with his rubber hammer. Sandy, don’t gve up your day job.