The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
Listen to this articleDear Editor:
Please be advised that I speak on behalf of myself and not on behalf of any Board to which I have been appointed. Any opinion expressed in this correspondence is mine and mine alone and does not reflect the opinion of those Boards.
I, like many in our community, feel the Town of Reading suffered a great loss with the resignation of former Select Board Chair, Jackie McCarthy. Jackie was a valuable member of the Select Board and remains a kind, intelligent, and caring person. I admit to having absolutely no independent knowledge of what led to Jackie’s resignation from the Board. Although I, like many, remain interested in Jackie’s reasoning for her resignation, I remain more concerned for her well-being and believe her reasons for resignation are hers alone unless and until she sees fit to comment publicly.
Christopher Haley’s public allegations and the manner in which he made those allegations cause me great concern. Mr. Haley, through his words and social media presence, appeared to care for Jackie’s well-being. However, his original cryptic allegations and then his subsequent decisions to publicly reallege those same criminal acts against his fellow board members and/or members of the community, makes it appear as though Mr. Haley is more interested in publicly threatening those who possess different ideas of what may be in Reading’s best interests than he is in governing or respecting his friend’s privacy. If Mr. Haley’s allegations are credible, then I would hope he reached out to the appropriate agencies to investigate. However, if Mr. Haley exaggerated his allegations in an effort to discredit those who disagree with him politically, then Mr. Haley’s conduct, credibility, and efficacy as a Select Board member should be carefully scrutinized and investigated as well.
The current discourse on those who may be compromised ethically and therefore should be prohibited from serving on the Select Board is not a decision that is, or should be, within the realm of responsibility of the Select Board. Those calling for an investigation by the Board into its own actions are simply seeking a quick but ultimately ineffective solution to a complicated issue. Town Counsel may be engaged to investigate up to a point, but Mr. Haley’s allegations appear to require further intervention beyond the authority and ethical responsibilities of Town Counsel.
Specific agencies exist for the investigation into any wrongdoing by members of municipal bodies. For instance, the State Ethics Commission is in place, under M.G.L. c. 268B section 2, to investigate alleged ethical violations described in M.G.L. c. 268A, by municipal employees, including Select Board members. Those violations range from misconduct in office to circumstances involving self-dealing or having a financial interest in Town contracts, and beyond. If there are concerns about a Select Board member’s conduct to the extent that crimes are being alleged, the State Ethics Commission should be engaged to investigate, rather than the Select Board themselves.
Mr. Haley has accused members of the community of blackmail. Blackmail is a crime under M.G.L. c. 265 sec. 25 and carries substantial penalties. I can only hope that Mr. Haley is not exaggerating or falsely alleging these crimes occurred. However, again, the Select Board has no mechanism in place or apparent authority to investigate these allegations on its own. My assumption is that all members of the community would be more comfortable with the Reading Police Department and the Middlesex District Attorney investigating criminal conduct rather than the untrained civilian Select Board.
All of us want answers. The extent to which we are entitled to them varies under the law and the process required to investigate allegations of misconduct is never handled quickly enough in the eyes of the community. The investigation of allegations should not, however, be done subject to the opinion of those who may not choose to be fully informed or adequately understand the factual context or law associated with the allegations. I will be the first to admit that I do not possess adequate knowledge or experience to investigate Mr. Haley’s allegations or comment on their validity. I ask other members of the community to recognize this fact for themselves and instead rely on those with the necessary expertise rather than keep the business of the Town from proceeding on schedule by their continued, ill-informed public comment at Select Board Hearings.
We need to remember that these members of the Select Board are our neighbors and friends as well as being elected officials. In the event that any are accused of misconduct, I would absolutely hope they are afforded the same due process that each and every one of us is allowed. If, after those investigations are completed and the appropriate due process is exhausted, a member is found to have violated his or her ethical obligation to Reading, or has, in fact, committed a crime, then the appropriate discipline should follow in accordance with the law. For the time being, however, the allegations should remain the province of the appropriate investigating authorities and it is not our place to speculate. I would ask that the current and future members of the Select Board continue fulfilling their responsibilities to Reading without further distraction.
Thank you,
Chris Cridler
Berkeley Street
