DEERFIELD — The Select Board has held off adopting a public comment and participation policy for public meetings as it awaits town counsel’s review.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU) sent the board a July 22 letter stating it had “serious concerns” regarding the suspension of public comments at several meetings in June.
The board held an executive session Aug. 18 to discuss its response to the ACLU’s letter and the town had been drafting a policy, but Town Administrator Kayce Warren said it was not ready in time for Thursday’s meeting.
“We had hoped to have a policy finalized for public comment/participation at meetings,” Warren said. “However, it’s under review as counsel is conferring with representatives from the ACLU. That’s all I have.”
The letter — signed by ACLU attorneys William Newman, Ruth Bourquin and Alan Seewald — addresses Select Board meetings held June 16, 22, 29 and 30 that featured public comment regarding the reappointment of Deerfield Police Detective Sgt. Adam Sokoloski to the Zoning Board of Appeals. At these meetings, some members of the public raised concerns about the appointment of a police officer to a regulatory board in town, citing barriers of “power” and “privilege.”
After two weeks of deliberation, the Select Board appointed Sokoloski to the ZBA at its June 30 meeting with a 2-0 vote — member Carolyn Shores Ness abstained — on the condition the board develops a best practices policy for appointment to town regulatory boards.
Newman, the managing attorney of the ACLU’s western regional office, did not respond for comment.
According to the ACLU’s letter, Warren ended public comment because the conversation centered “on an employee’s performance and possibly conduct” at the June 16 meeting. At the June 22 meeting, Select Board Chairman David Wolfram said he would suspend public comment if a town employee’s “name, performance or personality” was referenced. No public comment was allowed at the June 29 and 30 meetings.
By allowing the opportunity for public comment, the board created a public forum for First Amendment expression.
The ACLU claimed public comments cannot be prohibited based on the content of the comment “unless the restriction is narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling town interest.”
“The comments here were clearly addressed to the Board’s exercise of its appointment authority,” the ACLU’s letter states.
The ACLU declared the Select Board did not have the authority to suspend public comment about town employees because of the board’s status as a public body and the Open Meeting Law. It said the board should have allowed the public comment to continue but without response from the board.
“Both Ms. Warren and Chair Wolfram would have been on solid legal ground to advise the Board not to discuss the citizens’ concerns,” the letter states. “They had no authority to prohibit the public from addressing those concerns to the Board during a public comment period created specifically to address whether or not the Board should exercise its appointment authority.”
The letter further states the Open Meeting Law does not “preclude public comment criticizing the conduct of a public official.” The ACLU said citizens’ rights were violated when public comment was suspended at the meetings and urged the Select Board to “promptly review and conform to constitutional requirements.”
After Thursday’s meeting, Warren said the town could not comment on the issue as it is pending litigation.
“Our counsel has advised us to not to speak,” Warren said.