Charlie Breitrose
Watertown’s Town Hall.
Opponents of the Community Preservation Act say the supporters of the ballot measure for the CPA violated the Massachusetts election ethics law by using their appointed office to advocate for the measure.
Accusers spoke at Public Forum during Tuesday’s Town Council meeting and said that the entire Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee and a member of the Conservation Commission violated the ethics law.
Resident John DiMascio said that Conservation Commissioner Patrick Fairbairn should not have included his role on the commission when he signed a letter to the editor sent to Watertown News this week (click here to see the letter). He also said the entire Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee was in breach of the law when letting their committee be named as a supporter of the CPA on a campaign mailing from Invest in Watertown, the Yes on Question 5 group.
Fairbairn said he had no comment about the accusation.
Ethan Davis, chairman of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee, said that he did not have a comment about the accusation of ethical violations. He did say:
“The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee operates with little or no budget and is composed of volunteer residents that meet once a month to further the committee’s mission to improve the bicycle and pedestrian alternatives within Watertown for commuting and recreation,” Davis said, who noted some of the committee’s work including handing out more than 100 free bike helmets to children at the Faire on the Square, and working with Live Well Watertown and other organizations to host a community event to encourage residents to explore and take advantage of the recently constructed riverfront braille trail along the Charles River Road and bike path Greenough Boulevard
“It is a shame that someone is now seeking to attack the members of the committee for political purposes,” Davis said.
DiMascio said he fears that people will no longer feel that they will be treated fairly when appearing before the Conservation Commission.
“The people of Watertown deserve better than this,” DiMascio said. “They deserve to know that if they ever have business before any board or commission that it will be adjudicated impartially on the merits, without fear of politically motivated backlash. This will no longer be the case with the Conservation Commission, should this member be allowed to remain on the board.”
John Labadini, president of the Concerned Watertown Homeowners group which has come out against Question 5, said he is troubled by the accusations, and believes the matter should be looked into.
Fayette Street resident Russ Arico also expressed his outrage at the Council meeting.
“Using an official title to peddle for a campaign cannot stand and should not be tolerated,” Arico said.
According to the State Ethics Commission’s webpage about public employee political activity, members of appointed boards can use their position to inform the public about issues related to political issues, including ballot questions, but they should not advocated for or against it if they are using their appointed position. They may do so as a private citizen, i.e., without including their appointed position.
A passage from the Ethics Commission’s webpage reads:
“The extent to which elected public employees and policy-makers may use their official positions and public resources to make statements about ballot questions depends upon the positions they hold. Specifically, elected officials and appointed policy-makers may take official actions concerning ballot questions relating to their particular areas of official responsibility. They may also use public resources to inform the public, as opposed to for purposes of advocacy, without violating the conflict of interest law.”
DiMascio called for the the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee to be investigated by the State Ethics Commission and the Attorney General. He also wanted the members to “be publicly rebuked, asked to resign or be removed,” and should not be able to serve on any town committee or board again.
DiMascio also called for the Town Council to investigate, including checking to see if the members of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee and Fairbairn used their town emails to campaign for Question 2.
The Town Council did not respond to the statements, which is the Council’s policy for items brought up during Public Forum.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that the ethics law has been broken!
Surcharge (Noun)
1 an additional charge, tax, or cost.
2.an excessive sum or price charged.
3.an additional or excessive load or burden.
No wonder they might have taken a few liberties. “It is what it is”
Wow! So this has now devolved into a full fledged food fight. What a shining example of neighborliness and community! I am disgusted. Mr. DiMascio has proven himself incapable of making an argument without being insulting and demeaning and now this. I can’t imagine what people from other communities would think. We have sunk mighty low. I expect most of our children know how to behave better.
I have an idea: Let’s build an arena and we can sell tickets to the folks from Newton, Belmont, Brookline and Cambridge etc. to watch us fight like barbarians. Jeez. . .we could fund Community Preservation and the Schools with the ticket revenue.
Simply put, it sounds like Mr. DiMascio does not like bicycles and should get over it.
OK, so based on the quote from the Ethics Committee webpage: (“Specifically, elected officials and appointed policy-makers may take official actions concerning ballot questions relating to their particular areas of official responsibility.”) those accused of ethics violation were perfectly within the code of ethics in supporting CPA. Patrick Fairbairn is on the Conservation Commission, which is charged with finding and supporting ways to conserve Watertown’s open space and historic sites: precisely what CPA can funds can do. He’s perfectly within the protection of that quote to support it as a Conservation Commissioner. Likewise the Bike & Pedestrian Commission is supposed to find and support initiatives that improve biking and walking in the city. The CPA can provide funding to further their cause, and they are within their job description to support it.
Patrick and the Bike & Pedestrian group are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in supporting CPA. Clearly, There has been no ethics breach.
Not only are there possible breaches of ethics.. but other laws may have been violated…. Stand – by… as it will all shake out when investigated , and it will be.
I find it rich that the Chair of the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee, the very committee that abused it’s power and name for political purposes, is accusing me of attacking them for political purposes, by pointing out their misconduct.
John you attack many reasonable people on a regular basis. The folks you are attacking have done more for the community than you ever have and most folks know it.
Chosiad, I can’t speak for Mr Fairbairin (and he isn’t commenting) but it is in fact a violation. Keep this in mind too; He was made him aware that he may have made a mistake before I posted anything about it. No response. We were both invited to write a piece for The Boston Globe West a few weeks ago. I wrote for the Vote No side, he wrote for the Vote Yes. My understanding was he wanted to write the article with his title as conservation commissioner-if you look you can see the Globe wouldn’t let him because of this very issue/conflict. He wrote the article as a member of “Invest In Watetown”, which unfortunately he should have done here too. Charlie knows about it and I hope they fix it. I think it was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Below is the statute: Ironically they use a Conservation Commissioner as an example. My CAPS “Similarly, public employees may engage in non-election-related political activity on their own time, without the use of public resources and as PRIVATE CITIZENS Below are examples of non-election-related political activity that do not raise any issue under the conflict of interest law.
Example: A member of a town Conservation Commission, acting as a private citizen and WITHOUT USING HIS TITLE or any public resources, may participate in a grass roots group’s efforts to convince local government to build a new public school, provided that he does not act as the group’s agent or representative and is not compensated for his participation.
You guys are going too far and I think it may cost you. Most reasonable adults would not see this as a reasonable course of action.
Mr Levendusky, A question is asked and a question is answered? I don’t know how I coud be more fair to Mt Fairbairin, who I don’t know but I respect his position. I honestly wish he didn’t do what he did and I said I personally didn’t thing it was intentionally. Perhaps I haven’t communicated properly what we are hearing from folks? I may have failed in educating people on how many parents were absolutely horrified and angry at the folks behind this initiative. One parent, who has grandchildren in the same facilities as their Great Grandparents, gave me, by far the best analogy I’ve heard on this yet. She said “John, I feel like Lucy is once again pulling the football away from Charlie Brown at the last second’ I think the more people learn about the school situation, the more sensitive they are. They have seen this movie too many times. If you look at this in a vacuum I agree it looks like folks getting overheated, over a ballot question. When you have residents who feel like this was not only done intentional, to be ahead of the schools, but also now reading about possible malfeasance too, well, this anger doesn’t surprise me and some of it may turn out to be justifiable. If the school override fails, furious parents are going to rightful look back and place some of the blame on this initiative and the folks behind it.
Looks like the Town of Watertown may need to publish and distribute an operations guide to town employees and board members to ensure that everyone understands the ethics rules to keep anything like this from happening again.