On Tuesday, the Select Board voted to eliminate the “Chat” function on for all Southborough boards/committees that remotely hold meetings over the Town’s zoom account.
Written comments are visible to zoom meeting participants but not to those who view the streamed meeting by YouTube. In the past, Planning Board members discussed their worry that the chats might be a public records issue.* This week, the Select Board discussed problems with the function.
The topic was raised in response to use of chat during the Board’s November 16th meeting.
Previously, the Board has shared one or two comments or questions raised via chat in past meetings. But during a contentious Tree Removal Appeal Hearing, several residents used the chat function for dialogue. Before the hearing was closed, Vice Chair Chelsea Malinowski spent about six minutes reading the comments into the record.
Several chat comments related to topics (the St Marks Street project and planned pocket park) that the Chair had already stated would need to wait for a later agenda item. And some comments included questions or points that had already been addressed by the time the comment was read aloud. Some chatters also publicly spoke in the meeting, while at least one didn’t provide a name in initial comments.
This week, Chair Lisa Braccio said that she had found the chat to be distracting and disruptive. She received confirmation from Town Counsel that they are able to eliminate the chat since they offer another way for the public to comment in the meeting.
She noted that the Board offers public comment before and after the meeting. They also allow the public to participate during discussion items by “raising their hand” to be brought over.
Braccio said that she would have just disabled comments for their Board, but the IT Director informed her that the disabling would have to be done account wide, impacting all committees and boards using the zoom. So she brought it to the Board for discussion.
Other members supported eliminating chat, pointing to the Board’s responsiveness to “raised hands” just as if they were in the room with them. They likened the chat comments to people shouting out comments during an in-person meeting.
Member Andrew Dennington said that he had a hard time concentrating on what speakers were saying during the hearing on the 16th due to the comments flashing on his screen.
Member Marty Healey said that he hadn’t previously paid attention to chat comments. But the comments on the 16th seemed to him a public records “mess”. He supported eliminating the comments to avoid “dancing on the head of a pin” in trying to follow open meeting law records for the chats.
Prior to voting, the board brought over a raised hand. Marguerite Landry, who had participated both in the zoom video discussion on the 16th and as a chat commenter, opposed the change.
Landry noted that at in-person meetings, the public can see if the board is ignoring residents who raise their hands. In the zoom meetings, there is no way for the public to tell. Braccio responded that their board is careful about that, and she didn’t believe they had ever “missed” anyone.
Braccio said that she would work with Town Administrator Mark Purple on a message to committees and boards about the change.
Speaking of messages from the Town, this week it finally issued an announcement about the renaming of the Board. Members have called themselves the Select Board since voters approved the name change on November 1st. But agendas and the website had continue to the Board of Selectmen. This week, the Town announced:
The Board of Selectmen is rebranding and will now be referred to as “Select Board” to promote inclusion and diversity. This will be reflected in all communications, distributions and resources moving forward. If you would like to reach the Board through email, please note the new email address: selectboard@southboroughma.com. The Board will remain under the current confines of the Board of Selectmen authority.
*Back in July, members of the Planning Board discussed their worries about chat messages during hearings. Chair Don Morris noted that the written comments aren’t visible in meeting recordings. Member Jesse Stein likened the chats to people making comments at an in person meeting without being called on. In their following meeting, Town Planner Karina Quinn informed participants that participants must raise their hands to be recognized, not use the chat feature or Q&A.
There’s a better and easier way to manage this.
“…but the IT Director informed her that the disabling would have to be done account wide, impacting all committees and boards using the zoom. ” – This isn’t correct. Chat can be disabled between attendees and from attendees to panelists, minimizing and removing the disruption. Chat can remain enabled for OUTBOUND chat from panelists and host (e.g., share a URL with attendees). This can be done account wide, *and* it can be done on a meeting-by-meeting basis. It can be done even in the meeting (not just before it starts).
Further, the Q+A function is a far better tool to use to moderate questions than chat, as they can (a) be set to non-anonymous; and (b) be visible to the audience if and only if the panelists / co-hosts / host toggle ‘show answered questions only.’
Lastly, if someone raises a hand, they do not need to be ‘brought over’ (promoted from an attendee to a panelist). They can be simply granted the permission to talk, and that can then be removed after their turn is done. Making someone a panelist unnecessarily grants them permissions in a meeting.
I’ve administered and facilitated more than 150 meetings now for various municipal boards and other agencies along the east coast since the pandemic began. I’ve learned what tools, features, and functions work well with Zoom webinars and meetings , and which do not. I’ve offered in the past to Mr. Purple the open opportunity to talk about what help and advice I can give, if interested.
After waiting FOUR hours to speak during public comment, absolutely there was intentional running roughshod over raised hands. There should be a full 30 seconds at least to make sure there are no raised hands. The chair doesn’t wait 5 seconds. On purpose.
This BOS is worse than communist China. This is CENSORSHIP, and this BOS is altering the record and eliminating opposing opinions. Let the November 16 meeting chat speak for itself. It is perfect evidence on record of how this BOS does exactly as it wants and COMPLETELY IGNORES serious public comments and concerns. AND then incredibly wants to get rid of the evidence, the public comment itself. Were you the only one thinking the same questions and were others demanding the same answers and accountability? YES. That chat comment stream during the November 16 hearing called out important information and stated critical questions that BOS intentionally ignored. This BOS is censoring public opinion and loading the record.
On November 16, the BOS chair specifically promised to come back with an answers on serious questions regarding the so-called “license” agreement (versus easement) on the tree razed site behind the library, possibly a burial ground, and has not. Surprised? Importantly, the entire matter involving use of town land should likely belonged to the authority of voters on town meeting floor. That should have been on November 1, 2021. On November 3rd, Braccio read into the BOS minutes that town counsel and St. Marks counsel “signed” an agreement. Attorneys don’t sign for clients. In the meantime, after the site has been razed and excavated, and piping installed, all different uses than originally claimed, a draft CYA agreement is concocted. Two weeks later, on November 16, Healy, Braccio, Dennington, Malinowski, and Stivers unanimously approved a DRAFT “license” that night, without any legal description of the parcel attached. They didn’t even know what they were approving. The legal description was missing, not presented to the public. It still hasn’t been presented and MUST be. This matter is STOLEN authority from the VOTERS. The BOS doesn’t have the legal authority to make that empty flawed agreement. Period.
Importantly, it’s not just about ignoring the public. It’s all about the substance of the ignored concerns. It’s about truthful transparency and honest accountability. NEITHER is happening. Three of these BOS members campaign promises were transparency and accountability. Also, there is a disturbing organized railroading and manipulation of the public that this BOS is supposed to represent. There should be a follow up BOS agenda item to specifically provide the answer promised on the so-called “license” agreement, WITH the SIGNED agreement and legal description attached. To the BOS, you have zero credibility and this needs to happen.
“This BOS is worse than communist China.”
Comments like that are counterproductive to anybody taking your thoughts seriously. Maybe you have good point elsewhere in your post, but I stopped reading at the above quote. It’s absurd and frankly, insulting. And for the record, I am a mere resident, not affiliated with any municipal or corporate interest in this issue.
Sorry to disagree. Unlike your empty, useless comment, it is not only productive, but a helpful public service to alert fellow voters and taxpayers to point them to the last few sets of BOS minutes (Nov 3 and 16) to encourage them to read and understand exactly what this BOS is doing in terms of falsely loading the record. It is important to get this voting public up to speed on how their rights are being trampled upon.
BTW, you are not the only longtime observer. Over many years, having observed various levels of corruption, conflicts of interest, and yes, relentless violations of Open Meeting Law, it’s disappointing and tiresome to see the BOS ignore even admonishments from the Attorney General’s Office. Your pen name implies that somehow you know better than anyone else. You don’t. Comments like yours show a certain arrogance and simultaneously a recklessness, a polite” preference for sticking your head in the sand (or elsewhere). This BOS is censoring public opinions and opposing opinions especially. This is an assault on democracy. You ignore the substance of the matter, while focusing on the irrelevant. It is a matter of record that this BOS approved a so-called DRAFT “license” (Nov 16) AFTER stating on the record (Nov 3) that an agreement had already been signed, when in fact it had not. All the while, that CYA agreement was ridiculously concocted AFTER the razing of trees by Karen Galligan of DPW on a suspected Native American burial ground and excavation and installation of drainage pipes. You call that polite or even rational behavior? Wake up. Everyone should be asking how all this DPW work happened on private land using public money. And NO ONE including this BOS should be quelling public comment in any way. The public is asking important and legitimate questions in those chat comments. The point is not the format of the CHAT. The point is there are too many unanswered questions being ignored in the chat.
@IGNORING THE PUBLIC: I completely agree. I’m wondering if Longtime Observer actually read yours or others’ comments, or is aware of what is going on in town.
I believe that Longtime Observer’s point was that they were too turned off to continue reading once they saw the reference to the BOS as worse than Communist China. That’s a government credibly accused of serious human rights abuses including genocide crimes against an ethnic minority. Congress is currently working on a bill to punish China for the forced labor of Uyghurs.
The idea that somehow Southborough officials have done anything worse than that is pretty outrageous.
I’ve heard from many readers who are so turned off from reading similar anonymous comments that they have stopped reading comments all together. (Some even stopped reading the blog.)
You can try to make an argument that angry/accusatory comments aren’t over the top. But if people stop reading comments because of the tone, you won’t convince them of anything.
Beth, have you considered making blog comments non-anonymous? If I recall correctly, this blog had them non-anonymous in the past. I suspect people would be less apt to sling mud if their real names were attached to the comments. If some have stopped reading the blog altogether because of it, perhaps they will start reading again.
The blog never had non-anonymous comments to my knowledge. I have considered it and am still considering it. As time goes on, I have been leaning more that way.
Considerations include that if people don’t feel comfortable posting their concerns and questions with their name, officials won’t know what the chatter around town is. Dialogue about concerns can contribute to important compromises. But it feels like that is happening less and less as the tempers rise.
Also, if there are strong feelings about a certain issue and someone has children in the school system, using an alias makes perfect sense. Children hear things, and will repeat what they hear their parents say.
I’ve noticed people who seem to be using their real names make some pretty inflammatory comments.
as someone who does not wish to publish my name, I’d suggest that you (Beth ) consider taking on a more pro-active role and edit/delete the more insulting comments. I don’t think you’d often need to spend extra time justifying your action to the author altho some will challenge your decisions. For most, I think if they have something to say and you’ve taken action on their verbiage, they’ll re-post with more polite language. Requiring full names will not improve the overall blog’s effectiveness. Even with some of the mud-slinging, I feel your blog is still a very effective way to ” know what the chatter around town is.”
Requiring full/real names will increase the civility, though. If that’s a measure of the blog’s effectiveness, then it’s something to consider. A fair amount of research points to that conclusion (link below). Also, Beth – mea culpa. I thought at one point, blog commenting here was non-anonymous. https://www.google.com/search?q=does+removing+anonymous+commenting+improve+civility
Why don’t you start by using your full real name.
Hi, Jeff. I did, earlier in the comment string. I just dropped it on my second and subsequent replies.
I’d vote to keep anonymous posts available. The internet is permanent, even if a site shuts down, there are various archiving sites that you can look up old/obsolete websites.
My main reasoning is that people change! I certainly wouldn’t want some political post from 5, 10, 20 or more years ago haunting me if I apply for a new job or if anyone looks me up for other reasons.
I agree. That’s one reason Facebook is so awful.
Beth, I would STRONGLY advocate that you mandate ID’s for those who post on your blog immediately. Enough with the kamikaze already. You may lose hits, but you will gain steady, trusting readers. Anyone who posts here should be ready to stand by their comments—publicly—or go home. I have taken many controversial positions here over the years, and always signed my name to them. So should everyone else, if they wish to be heard.
Beth, you insert your own comment and odd over-the-top misinterpretations, but leave no button or space to reply. While I agree with you many times, this is one instance where you are simply completely misinterpreting and worse, fostering and encouraging empty miss-the-point comments. While ignoring the bullshit that this reckless BOS is serving the public. Not ok. The fact that anyone could miss the point and needs an explanation is itself astonishing.
The comment on communist China is precisely spot on in relation to the single point: BOS absolute IGNORING PUBLIC COMMENTS and doubling down on its arrogant and disrespectful disregard of opposing opinion. To the extent of wanting to erase it (the chat). This is an assault on democracy and democratic principles that our veterans died for. The proof is in the pudding. The BOS is now plowing (pun intended) ahead with its latest DISTRACTION from excavating a likely burial ground, by forming yet another don’t-blame-BOS, blame-the-committee. It is wrong that you would extend this comment to umbrella human rights abuses. But if you want to go there, which is a head scratcher and utterly over the top, take a hard look at the public’s actual objections, the real substance and address that. As one neighbor put it, this BOS is the worst ever. How do you dig up a suspected Native American cemetery without at least addressing public concerns on same? Do you just look the other way? Run roughshod? Native Americans are only now getting the attention and appropriate spotlight put on the atrocities related to killings at boarding schools, among other many profound wrongs. Ignorant on the topic? Google the exceptional letter by the Chief of the Nipmuc Nation expressing condolences to fellow tribes in Canada and the US. So if you want to honestly address human rights abuses, utter disregard and lack of proper respect for the dead and Native Americans, start right here behind the library with our own clearly marked “Nipmuc Burial Ground.” How about that, Beth?
I didn’t remove any ability to reply – I don’t know what you are referring to. If there is a wordpress glitch, it’s not something that I created to avoid replies to my comments. It’s also been pointed out that some of my comments in past dialogues have shown up blue and out of order (which I visually confirmed). I have no idea how that sometimes happens or how to fix it.
I think you and some other commenters continually “miss the point” of those who object to some of the characterizations. I don’t believe calling such language “spot on” will help you reach those readers who feel otherwise. Once they are turned off, the rest of what you have to say is just white noise.
Thank you Beth. You reflected well the points I was trying to make.
I read the blog regularly, and when I do, I read the comments. I usually do not comment myself, hence “Longtime Observer.”
Regarding the commenter “ignoring the public,” (Not sorry – I will not shout in all caps)…
For the life of me I do not understand how a person could read my pen name and make the leap to assume that I think I “know better than anyone else.” To insinuate that I am arrogant, have not been paying attention, am reckless, and prefer to stick my head in the sand or “elsewhere,” as you so charmingly suggest, is pretty offensive. If that was your point, well done. I am offended by your personal attacks on me.
I have been closely following the events in question, as I am a neighbor of the project. I generally pay attention to the goings-on of BOS and Planning and EDC and Historical and all the rest. I will continue to do so. I will continue to study the record and form my own opinions.
I also will chat with my friends and neighbors, many of whom do and will have different perspectives that are worth consideration.
What is not going to happen is that I will not be suckered in by hyperbole and soundbytes shouted in all caps. I will not be swayed by you calling me, or anybody else, names or addressing me in a derogatory way. I am, in fact, so turned off by your disrespectful antics, both toward me and the BOS, that I will have to try doubly hard to consider any criticism of the BOS as fair. Criticism of the BOS may be fair in this case. but you have undermined that premise with your insolence.
Since Longtime Observer disagrees with the observation of his own ill focused opinions, just putting it out on the table that he has his own wrong, peculiar twist on the use of all caps. Longtime Observer: the use of all caps is not “shouting.” What a weird interpretation. It is simply placing visual emphasis in narrative passages. Period.
Also, while we may not agree on what matters in terms of important substantive issues before voters, there is one thing all observers can agree on: the RECORD in the BOS minutes of November 3rd and 16th. BOS says it had a signed agreement with St. Marks in the November 3rd minutes. WHERE IS IT? Beth, can you provide a link? Also a link to any BOS vote on same would be great.
On November 16, the BOS is apparently approving an UNSIGNED, DRAFT “license” agreement. Hold the phone and roll tape. The Chair is reading into the record/ minutes proclaiming done signed deal (line 200) on November 3rd. Why the DRAFT in the November 16 BOS agenda packet? Furthermore, the DRAFT has no legal description of the site. Not attached. Not contained in the document. That misleading loading of the record on November 3rd is self explanatory. The most important outstanding issue of course is ignoring all the legitimate questions raised by the public. The BOS should be welcoming and embracing questions and public comments. Instead, the public is treated like the enemy and subjected to snarky Marty. All the disappointments and disagreements would disappear if the BOS would simply just answer all of these legitimate questions and concerns raised in public comment section of BOS meetings. Start with who owns the land? Put the signed agreement and legal description in the next BOS packet.
Serious inquiries about what is going on at the parcel of land owned by St Marks and supported upgrades with your tax dollars have been ignored largely. Instead Select Board spends time talking now about how to honor the Nipmuc Indians in the circle portion of the park to be determined and who should be on the new committee to come up with park plans. Pure insanity! We were not concerned about the Nipmuc Indians and their possible burial ground when excavating the parcel but NOW we want to show how sensitive we are and install a bench with a plaque. Sorry, but we need some investigative reporting in this town. Appreciate the efforts of this blog but it simply will not suffice to unearth (no pun intended) the scandal going on between DPW, Select Board and St Marks while the public is presented with a distracting park planning session. And the question remains as to why were tax dollars used to improve St. Marks land without Town approval? Here’s another idea: how about a plaque installed in the “up and coming” downtown for the worst Select Board in history? The voters in this town deserve answers at the very least but so far smoke and mirrors.
Don’t like SB chair Braccio’s methods/censorship/manipulations? Remember that in the Spring of 2023 when you can vote her out of office.
You will have the opportunity to toss Healey out on his ear this Spring (2022). His rude and snarky comments, not to mention run-on ramblings about nothing, will not be missed.
This version of the SB has repeatedly run roughshod over Southborough voters for too long. Keep any SB members that are doing good for the town and toss the rest!
Why is it nobody has filed suit in court to have the work stopped on this so-called pocket park? A judge needs to issue an injunction to immediately cease activity on this project until the matter gets sorted out.
Enough already!!!
I removed an inflammatory phrase that someone pointed out to me in “trow ‘da bums out!”‘s comment.
I know that some people are upset at how the Board handled the pocket park project, and some questions are being raised about the legality of the process. I’m not a lawyer and won’t claim to have any expertise. But it seems absurd to imply any board members were intentionally committing some kind of criminal act by approving the project.
What’s absurd is that a comment titled “[…] trow ‘da bums out!” , anonymous at that, then proceeds to say “rude and snarky comments”. Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the comment – rather, pointing out that it’s ridiculous to expect civility with that kind of tone.
Beth, I obviously did not read that part of that comment carefully. You are correct. Sadly, I am well aware of the horrific human rights abuses in China.
It’s clear we don’t agree at all on that point. It is neither impolite nor uncivil to stay firmly anchored in root SUBSTANCE of public matters and demanding answers. Versus empty bla, bla criticism. Most taxpayers and voters CARE to know about covering up, ducking or sending smoke over blurring or falsifying a record. You and the BOS blissfully stick your head in the sand on the BOS’s OWN VERSION OF UNCIVIL CONDUCT. What about the unanswered questions and IGNORING the public by bounding ahead. The entire matter involving public matters and public land likely belongs to the VOTERS and this is the key unaddressed question being ignored. The likely stealing of legal authority from the voters and the essence of democratic rights. You certainly must have some “polite” way to characterize this? Let’s hear it. In the meantime, those voters who care will stay focused on relevant high priority issues. Those voters care and matter. Faith can be put in that block of smart focused citizens.
“Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government, which sooner or later becomes autocratic government.”
— William Lyon Mackenzie King