LtE: Questions for Bacci re Open Meeting Law Violation

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

To the Editor:

In any investigation or further discussion of the Open Meeting Law (OML) violation that occurred in early February concerning the selection of the Town Manager, Select Board Member Mr. Carlo Bacci needs to be transparent about his role. Bacci created the OML violation by calling fellow Select Board Member Ms. McCarthy.

Here are some questions that I believe Bacci should answer:

1. When you called McCarthy to discuss the selection of the Town Manager, were your first words to ask her whether she had communicated with any other Select Board Member about the Town Manager Selection? 
   Rationale: This is what he should have done if he wanted to avoid an OML violation. If she said yes (as presumably she would have), Bacci should have said they couldn’t discuss the Town Manger selection and then hung up. Bacci should have realized that it was likely McCarthy and Select Board Member Dockser had discussed it because they both served on the Town Manager selection committee and, therefore, that his contact with her would create an OML violation.
2. Did you discuss the Town Manger selection with Select Board Member Haley? Or did you have any discussion with a third party about how Haley felt about the Town Manager candidates? 
   Rationale: Either of these, before or after Bacci’s discussion with McCarthy, would have created an OML violation. It seems likely that Bacci and Haley had communicated (directly or indirectly) about the Town Manager selection given their political alignment and coordination on other issues. It also seems likely because at the Select Board meeting on Feb. 6 they both stated their support for candidate Kraunelis citing the Town’s need for stability. This criterion was not among the stated selection criteria and, to my knowledge, had not been raised before. It seems unlikely that both Bacci and Haley would have decided to use this language to support their choice totally independently.
3. Given the above, why did you call McCarthy without taking steps to avoid an OML violation? (I assume given your years of service on the Board that you understand the OML and would want to avoid violating it.) Was it your intent to create an OML violation? Was it your intent to do so to put McCarthy in an uncomfortable position where she might feel pressured to support the Town Manager candidate you were supporting?
4. At the Feb. 6 Select Board meeting where McCarthy disclosed the OML violation and recused herself, why didn’t you disclose that you had created the OML violation and recuse yourself?

Answers to these questions are necessary for the Select Board’s transparency and accountability about what happened with the OML violation. They may also cast some light on McCarthy’s resignation from the Board and the subsequent events that have roiled the Select Board and the Town.

Sincerely,

John Lippitt
Mineral St.

Support our sponsors