Sandra and Joseph Coleman have written two editorials calling for the Select Board to remove the gag order on public comments at their meeting. As I have pointed out before, this Select Board has systematically excluded the public for their meetings. They began by forbidding the public from addressing what Jeanette Stewart called talking about the past, even though a number of issues from the past were still relevant like the Union Contract that contained numerous errors. The stated reason for this was that they had too much to do. They moved their work sessions from the evening to the morning, at time when few people can attend, where no public comments/questions are allowed, and sessions are held at the town hall where there is little room. She promised that no important votes would be taken at the work sessions, but the board regularly votes on important issues, like the budget at those sessions. After imposition of the gag order, the board said that the public can submit questions two weeks in advance, but they have not completely answered all the questions that are submitted, nor have they read some public comments on issues. Follow-up questions must also be submitted in writing, so that to get an answer to a questions could several months. This has effectively shut down any real discussion.
It is clear that the board not only wants to cut off free speech, they want to limit public participation in town government. An excellent example is Stewart's attempt to do away with the budget committee, which was soundly defeated by a vote of 256 to 65. If the warrant article had passed, little public discussion of the budget would be allowed because of the gag order, and the budget would likely be prepared at the work sessions meetings, as it was this past year, when few were able to attend.
The right things to do would be to restore public comments, move the work sessions to the evening, and encourage public participation. So far, the board has not responded to any public pressure, but members of the public should insist that these changes be made immediately. To be sure, there have been times where public discussion has been less than civil. This can and should be effectively managed by the Board, perhaps even with the help of the town moderator.
Democracy is often messy. But debate is necessary for progress and the overall health of the government. Our officials are elected by the public and therefore answerable directly to the public. Shutting down discussion and debate are key features of dictatorships. We need to elect officials who understand that free speech and public participation are among the most fundamental principles of a democracy. Perhaps with the advent of the 5-member board, a true democratic government will return to Ashland, and in the future those who oppose free speech will be voted out of office.