Brownie Does Brookline.
By Jim Conley • Aug 20th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
When covering L’affaires de Brookline, you learn very early on that people in town government only want to hear from people who agree with them. I’ve listened in on a lot of public meetings and I can’t think of a time when an opposing view was welcomed by a decision-maker. Typically, skepticism is met with condescension and derision.
I suppose this is mostly Groupthink at work.
So enured to this am I that I almost missed the absurdity of a recent decision made by the Brookline Selectmen concerning their St. Aidan’s housing project. Recently, I reported a side item on a ZBA hearing in 2003 that had the chair of the ZBA, Diane Gordon, remarking that she had been persuaded by then-chair of the Selectmen Robert “The Mensch” Allen that, “the [St. Aidan's] project is doable” [see previous post].
In June of this year, when the Selectmen took up a request by the Boston Archdiocese for another $1.7 million in public funds (bringing the total to over $6 million) for the project, they required a report on the project’s feasibility (whatever that means) prior to the distribution of cash.
And who did they appoint to make the feasibility study? Why Selectman Robert Allen, of course. The same Robert Allen who was lobbying for the project during its permitting phase. The same Robert Allen who was recognized throughout the ZBA hearings as the driving force behind the project.
The same Robert Allen who earlier had allowed no public comment as the Selectmen advanced $1 million in funds to the project to cover cost over-runs. (The cost over-runs came about because the developer had “mis-calculated” the square footage of the Church interior they were busily tearing apart. It’s only natural to want to give people millions in public funds when that happens. I think it’s called the Heckuva-Job-Brownie approach to public management.)
The great tragedy in government today is the low intellect (marked by hostility to skepticism) of those making profound decisions for the rest of us. It may be that comedy is born out of tragedy, and someday we’ll all guffaw over this period of goofball government.
But I find it harder every day to watch the tragedies unfold — especially as our basic liberties (like separation of church and state) continue to erode at the hands of people who can brook no critical analysis.
Heckuva job Brookline town government. Heckuva job.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Here is a quote from the case of Yaro v. Board of Appeals of Newburyport, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 587, 590-591 (1980):
“The Open Meeting Law ‘mandates that the board deliberate and arrive at its decision under public observation. This mandate includes neither public verbal participation during the board’s deliberations, … nor the writing of a final decision under the public scrutiny.’”
The Yaro case concerned a special permit issued under the Zoning Statute, Chapter 40A. While the St. Aidan’s matter concerned Chapter 40B, it seems clear that the statement in Yaro would apply equally to a proceeding by a board of appeals under Chapter 40B.
The decision by a board of appeals, whether in a Chapter 40A or a Chapter 40B case, should be based only upon evidence produced in the course of a public hearing. This raises the question whether Bobby Allen’s do-ability statement that Chair Gordon remarked on was in evidence at the St. Aidan’s public hearing. If not, then it would appear that the Chair, and perhaps other members of the ZBA panel, based their decision on matters that were not in evidence in the course of the public hearing. (I doubt that the Chair or other members of the ZBA panel would have the chutzpah to take the position that Bobby Allen’s do-ability statement came into evidence in the public when remarked upon by the Chair.)
For those who can access the Yaro case, you will find it most interesting on the changing by a board of appeals of its decision.
Here is another pertinent quote from the Yaro case (at 591):
“Sections 23A and 23B [Open Meeting Law] do not require a board to hold a public hearing for purpose of reducing to writing a decision reached at a meeting which was open to the public and where accurate records of the meeting are kept and the substance of the decision was made known to the public.”
Query whether the records of the St. Aidan’s public meeting disclose accurately evidence presented at the public hearing of the do-ability statement referenced by the ZBA panel Chair other than from the Chair’s ex parte contacts with Bobby Allen? Were these ex parte contacts by telephone, by Email, by winks and nods, smoke signals? Are such ex parte contacts common with ZBA cases in Brookline?