Election (Part 2)

This is the second in a series of entries on the May selectboard election.

The first entry identified a letter to the editor of the Eagle from Peter Goldberg shortly before the election as a major contributor to the election’s result. That letter is set forth in full below:

“It was with dismay that I noticed the recent, public statement of support by the Egremont Finance Committee members for Selectman candidate Laura Allen. In these times of great economic challenge, town taxpayers look to our officials and, especially our financial watchdogs, for their expertise and guidance. Along with the Select Board members, the Finance Committee members deserve our highest trust. Unfortunately, that trust has now been broken with the inappropriate endorsement of one particular candidate.

“As private citizens, Finance Committee members are certainly entitled to voice their support for the candidate of their choice. However, in this case, the entire membership has chosen to cross the line of neutrality and ethical standards. My primary disappointment comes about because, as individuals, I know each member to be of good character and well qualified to be on the committee.

“It is unfortunate that their collective decision has caused me to lose trust in their work for our town. Therefore, I believe that it would be most appropriate for the members to resign immediately, reapply for membership when the new Select Board is seated, and assure the taxpayers that they will refrain from future actions that jeopardize their relationship with the public trust.”

I have read and re-read this letter many times in an attempt to unravel its inconsistencies and ascribe some legitimacy to what seems to be nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the views of five voters who favor the candidate Mr. Goldberg opposes, and to do so by defaming them. I’ve failed. Perhaps readers of this blog can offer rational explanations, and I encourage comments doing so.

It’s illuminating to briefly outline the backgrounds of the individuals who Mr. Goldberg castigates. In alphabetical order: Frank Penglase spent 38 years in corporate finance before retiring to Egremont; he was a senior vice president and treasurer of McGraw-Hill. Walter Rubenstein is an accountant who founded and ran an accounting firm in New York City for over 40 years. Steve Schoenfeld spent his entire career in financial services; in Egremont he has been a co-head of Egremont on Parade and a trustee of the French Park Fund. Laurie Warner has lived in Egremont for 30 years and manages the business of Wm. Warner Construction. Bill Weigle has lived in Egremont for over 70 years; he has been a selectman and a moderator and was a volunteer fireman for over 40 years. I believe none of them was ever publicly accused of being unethical until Mr. Goldberg chose to do so.

The First Amendment is critical to our democracy, and the most important part of the First Amendment is its absolute protection of a citizen’s right to speak out about candidates for office without restriction, no matter how right or wrong the views expressed or how abusive and critical those views are. And the protection obviously doesn’t stop applying because the views are expressed by a group of citizens rather than by one citizen. We need to constantly remind ourselves – and others – that rules and policies that muzzle or censor political views are steps on the path to totalitarianism.

And it is preposterous to suggest that a citizen – or group of citizens - lose the right to speak out about candidates by volunteering to serve on town committees. Indeed, the experience acquired by serving on a town committee may result in someone’s views becoming MORE relevant to the electorate. To try to muzzle or censor a citizen’s right – individually or collectively – to speak out strikes at the heart of our democratic system and should be condemned as strongly as possible.

It is important that people such as Mr. Goldberg be entitled to publish attacks on candidates, including attacking a candidate’s ethics. But that is not what he did. Rather, he attacked SUPPORTERS of a candidate. Worse, he didn’t even attack their views, but rather just accused them of being unethical, presumably for the offense of exercising their Constitutional right to express viewpoints about a candidate’s qualifications within their field of expertise.

I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide if Mr. Goldberg's "dismay" is simply misguided or something else. In any event, it seems to me that he owes the five of his neighbors named above a very sincere apology.