Character assassination has no place in the government or politics of Stockbridge.
The following was posted on the town website:
Emails arrived questioning such a post. Many just seemed shocked: What is this? Who wrote this? Is this for real?
In her regular weekly email posting town meetings, the Chair of the Democratic Town Committee added this note: “My opinion: If personnel actions are private and held in executive session, I find it inappropriate to include defamatory and inflammatory statements in the meeting agenda.”
Echoing that sentiment succinctly, a citizen wrote, “What a horrible agenda [item] to publicly state and then privately discuss.”
Indeed.
The last communique was even more on point: “But Hugh resigned at 1pm today.” Then, why post this at all? Was this posted before? Did seeing it force Hugh’s decision?
To be fully transparent, the agenda item repeats words in Mass General Law (MGL) Title III, Chapter 30A, Section 21, “Meeting of public body in executive session”:
A public body may meet in executive session only for the following purposes: To discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health, rather than professional competence, of an individual, or to discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual…
That is a statement of the law governing when a meeting is held in executive session. Nothing caused the person who posted this agenda item or the people who approve postings to limit the words from among a list of possible reasons: “…or to discuss discipline … or dismissal … or complaints … or charges …” Nothing caused the person who posted this or approved the posting to add any of those words. At other times and in other places, an agenda item like that one would simply read: “To discuss the employment of Highway Superintendent Hugh Page.”
Character assassination has no place in the government or politics of Stockbridge.
When the following was first said in my hearing, it struck me and I never forgot it. So I have written this before: When folks in town objected to locking their doors, our police chief said, “Everything out there comes here. It just takes longer.”
That statement encapsulated so much about living in a village, in New England, in Stockbridge. Here we knew each other. Here we trusted each other. Her we swung in and out of each other’s houses to say hello, leave something from the garden or something fresh-baked or to borrow something and return it before they even knew it was gone—a dozen things, none of them nefarious. Out there were the strangers, the malcontents, and the evildoers—not here.
For some time, “out there” was a brand of politics, unheard of here or in most places in America. A brand of politics built on ridicule and character assassination, built on justifying bad behavior and bad laws with name calling, misrepresentations, false accusations, and calumny. It took longer, but now it is here.
A word about Hugh Page: We all know him. What do we know? He loves Stockbridge. He is one of us. He is the hardest worker and “the best highway superintendent Stockbridge ever had.”
I know that last because it was said directly to me by one of the people who would have sat in that executive session. Someone else said he was the hardest working super we ever had. So, what goes on? Why did the same thing happen to the last highway superintendent? Why did another local boy characterized as “the hardest working selectman ever” walk out?
No secret that I love this village. Everyone knows it is easier to walk away, easier to spout palliatives and leave the unpleasant unsaid. Here’s the thing: This has to be fixed. If we have a toxic work environment in Stockbridge—of all places—we have to fix it. We can’t if we don’t acknowledge it. We must not add to the toxicity, but we must solve the problem.
I witnessed the oddest thing the night before. In a meeting of a duly constituted board with appointed members, a problem was being discussed. Not the easiest discussion, but everyone was engaged and they seemed to be working toward a possible decision. A chair of another board, sitting in the audience, came running from the back, cell phone held high, saying, “I have Michael Canales on the phone. I have Michael.” The implication was he would tell everyone what to do.
Good grief. We are New England municipalities. We are run by volunteers. Many of the municipalities still operate on the Town Meeting model. In short, we are democracies. We run our governments. We did and can again respect and trust each other and work it out.
I know Michael too. I cannot imagine he wants to be seen as potentate of Stockbridge—the one and only who knows what to do. Sort of disrespectful of the board members convening and embarrassing to poor Michael who was (sensibly) home for the evening, probably eating supper.
At this time when what has been out there apparently reached here, remembering who we are is very important. Remembering what makes us who we are is very important.
Character assassination has no place in Stockbridge government or politics.
