By MARK SARDELLA
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, the old saying goes.
And willful ignorance of the law combined with arrogance is inexcusable. Exhibit A: the recent ruling by the Attorney General’s office that the Wakefield Planning Board violated the Open Meeting Law.
The Planners convinced themselves that the superiority of their MBTA Multifamily Zoning compliance plan warranted hiding information from the public and scheming behind closed doors.
Residents sensed early on that something was amiss. The Planning Board was not listening to the clear majority of citizens who wanted no part of the board’s supersized compliance plan and map, which went well beyond the state mandate in terms of geographic area and multifamily units allowed.
The state’s MBTA Multifamily Zoning mandate has been sold largely as a climate measure. “Multi-family housing near transit creates walkable neighborhoods with climate and transportation benefits,” according to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, “including better access to work/services, increased utilization of public transit and reduced reliance on single-occupancy vehicles.”
The Planning Board and its Working Group decided to expand on this magical thinking and go the state one better.
Some of us remember when the Planning Board attracted individuals mainly interested in land use. Those days are gone. Now, every public body, no matter how small or seemingly geared to a specific purpose, has been infiltrated by political activists.
The Planning Board was so intent on imposing its expanded plan on the town that it was willing to hide the existence of an alternative, minimum compliance plan, which it intended to unveil at Town Meeting only if it appeared that their original, expanded plan was going to be rejected.
At least one climate-crusading member on the Planning Board’s Working Group, then-Town Councilor Julie Smith-Galvin, was just fine with keeping the existence of the alternative, smaller map from the public so that Town Meeting voters would think their only choice was the original, supersized plan.
According the AG’s written decision, Smith-Galvin responded to an email from Working Group Chairman Jim Hogan about the smaller, alternative map by saying, “I don’t think we should widely publicize that we have this map so that people stay focused on the original that was developed with more input and consideration by the Working Group.”
Planning Board member Matthew Lowry emailed Chairman Theo Noell advising that the alternative minimum map should be brought up only if it looked like the original, supersized plan would not pass at Town Meeting.
Based on these emails, the AG’s Office determined that at least four members of the Planning Board participated in this behind-the-scenes scheming.
“Matthew Lowry’s email to Chair Noell revealed that at least four (Planning) Board members were involved in private discussions about introducing the Minimum Map through floor amendment at spring Town meeting,” the AG determined. “Because a quorum of the Board discussed introduction of the Minimum Map outside of a public meeting, the Board violated the Open Meeting Law.”
People who don’t have an agenda don’t feel the need to hide information from the public. On the contrary, a real believer in open government would want all available information to be shared freely with the public.
But that isn’t what happened.
The Planning Board pre-arranged with a member of another town board to innocently ask from the floor of Town Meeting about the existence of an alternative map if it looked like the Planning Board’s original, plus-sized map was going down in flames.
The public has a high tolerance for political shenanigans. They’re willing to put up with a lot of nonsense from their elected and appointed bodies. But occasionally, citizens do expect to be listened to, especially at “public forums” and “public hearings.”
It’s not that hard to listen to the public. Nor is it hard to conduct the public’s business in public.
And it’s easy to follow the Open Meeting Law – unless you have a political agenda.
