If you were not in attendance at the March 21st meeting of the Hamilton Board of Selectmen and you did not watch it on TV or view it online...here's a word of advice: DON'T WATCH IT!Not since Selectman Bill Bowler was required to get up at Town Meeting last year and apologize to Hamilton residents for violating (numerous times) the Open Meeting laws have I witnessed a more embarrassing moment than the one that came at the end of Monday night's BoS meeting. Chairman Scuteri chose that time to publicly condemn Selectman Jeff Stinson for answering a question posed to him by a member of the media. His statement to the reporter was essentially the same as the statements he made in open session at the previous Selectman meeting. But the chairman made it clear that she wanted all correspondence with the media to run through her...so she can filter it.
QUOTES:
Stinson: "It sends a bad message to the public to say that you are filtering what you're telling the public on certain items."
Scuteri: "We are absolutely not filtering...it's because I think it (your statement) needed to be filtered...because we took a vote."
What? Point of Information: NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE ISSUE. (The issue, by the way, was whether or not $275,000 of mistakenly collected taxes should be returned to the taxpayers. Selectmen Stinson stated he thought it should be returned, as did most others... including the Chairman of the Finance Committee.)
That's not how I interpreted what Selectman Stinson said. To me it sounded like a reiteration of what he said publicly at the BoS meeting where the issue was discussed.
Scuteri: "It's also important for the right person to be getting the credit."
Is that what this is all about? Who gets the CREDIT?
Well, if it is, then I can tell you who deserves all the credit for stirring up controversy and embarrassment for the BoS...and it's not Selectmen Stinson. As of this writing, an article in the Hamilton-Wenham Patch, Selectmen Spar About Comment To The Press, has generated twelve replies, all in favor of Selectman Stinson's position and opposed to Chairman Scuteri's position.
In support of her condemnation of Stinson, Chairman Scuteri said, "We need to know when we leave here (that) no one is going to be disparaged for possibly taking a position that is controversial."
Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened when she brought up this unnecessary and embarrassing discussion in a public forum. And you know what is particularly interesting? It's not Selectman Stinson that is being disparaged as a result.
one thing the chairman of the board of selectmen needs to remember is to discuss board policy and such behind closeddoors so to speak,not out in front of a oublic meeting and TV coverage.
ReplyDeleteYour writing is exactly correct but I have an addition to make. Not only is the Chairman trying to filter Jeff Stinson but she is doing her best to filter public opnion from residents and particularly public and private persons trying to give information to the Select Board. She calls it adhering to protocol which is really "sit down and shut up".
ReplyDeleteJay, Nicely written. Just when I thought we hit bottom.... It's getting worse.
ReplyDeleteAs always, a thoughtful, well-written piece from you, Jay.
ReplyDeleteQE
Good job Jay, Thanks for sending that. I felt that Jennifer should not have dome this publicly. Now it is all over town and the TV, the Patch and will probably be in the Chronicle. Like - how about calling attention to it. DUH
ReplyDeleteJeff did not give up his first ammendment rights when he became selectman.
OK, I guess I will be the first to comment twice, lol.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jay's column is well-written but one thing that needs to be pointed out is that Jen Scuteri was in favor of returning the overcharge to the tax payers, as were four other board members not including Jeff Stinson. Some who read Jay's article may come away from it thinking that Stinson alone was for doing this, and that is not the case.
QE
QE...Thank you for your replies and clarification. Please note, though, that this article is not meant to be about who was in favor, or against, the return of the taxpayers money. It's about how the Chairman called out Selectman Stinson, once again, and attempted to make him look bad publicly... as she has on numerous previous occasions. As they say, "Enough is Enough" and it's evident that this time it backfired on her. Hopefully she learned from this.
ReplyDeleteIs it because Jeff is younger than the rest of the panel? Or is because he's smarter? You be the Judge!!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good job Jeff!!!!
ReplyDeleteSince when is becoming a Selectman also the end of your Constitutional rights? Go Jeff, keep us all loving the clarity you operate in. The other BOS members are not use to being open and honest!
Also, great post Jay, thanks!!!!