LtE: Pulling Back the Curtain on the Wizard
To the Editor and Residents of Reading,
On April 3, the Reading Recap, an online “media outlet” run by Select Board member Chris Haley, published a Letter to the Editor in support of Select Board incumbent and candidate Melissa Murphy, which mentions an issue the letter writer worked on with Ms. Murphy. The letter writer thought the change made by the Select Board was a positive one and writes in favor of Ms. Murphy’s re-election. In response, I wrote a letter from my perspective, titled “Running on Her Record,” explaining why I believed the change would actually not be in the best interest of the majority of residents in Reading. I also wrote of several other votes Ms. Murphy had taken with which I disagreed. I submitted my letter to the Recap on April 3, and to date the Reading Recap has not posted my letter. I have sent several emails to the Recap asking why my letter has not been posted, but I have not received a response. Mr. Haley has since posted his own Letter (to himself??) which states it was sent in by “a reader” and is a curious counterpoint to my letter which he would not publish. Mr. Haley wishes to obscure the truth that he posts letters which support the candidates he endorses, but rejects letters which do not.
Previously I have written to the Editor at the Recap, asking who the leadership of the Recap was, and why Mr. Haley was not named as owner or leader on the website. (The Recap contact page lists 4 people under the staff directory, and an unnamed “The Editor.”) I was told (by an anonymous responder) that the Recap was “simply following the exact same format that The Reading Post/Chronicle does.” This is simply not true. The Post lists a named Advisory Board, which takes responsibility for communications and provides oversight for the Post’s operations. The Chronicle has a named publisher and numerous named Editors. The unsigned email I received stated “This mailbox is shared by multiple members who contribute to the day-to-day operations… Whomever has time to respond, does so.” I find the lack of transparency disturbing, and a poor excuse to absolve oneself of personal responsibility. Many in town are not aware that this outlet is run by Select Board member Chris Haley, and they assume the Recap is an objective news source. That is far from the truth. Mr. Haley wishes to be seen as an impartial purveyor of news, but he is not. Mr. Haley has used his position as Select Board member to gain access and favor for the Recap not afforded other outlets. While publishing his own Letter to Himself, he has yet to respond to my query why my letter was not published.
It is past the time to pull the curtain back on the wizard. I am not the only Reading resident who is concerned about this lack of transparency and lack of objectivity from a website that wishes to be seen as a comprehensive and reliable source of news for the town. I am concerned that a Select Board member, in charge of the Recap, is censoring a letter which challenges the voting record of a fellow Select Board member whom he endorses, without any explanation, on his online media platform. Mr. Haley, wearing his “news” hat, wishes to wrap himself in the cloak of journalistic integrity and impartiality, which he clearly lacks.
If you went to vote early last week, or were in the center of town, you probably saw Mr. Haley’s truck parked across the street from the entrance to Town Hall parking lot, with “Vote Here” written on an arrow on top freestanding “Elect Cook” and “Elect Murphy” signs. (see attached photo). Is it really any wonder that the Recap would not print my letter when Mr. Haley is so heavily invested in electing Ms. Murphy and Mr. Cook to the Select Board?
No need for any transparency here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Below is my letter which I sent to the Reading Recap last week, which they would not publish.
Sincerely,
Angela Binda, Town Meeting Member
Orchard Park Drive
To the Editor,
As the only incumbent (elected May 2024) running for Select Board, Ms. Melissa Murphy has a Select Board record to run on, and a recent letter writer supporting Ms. Murphy promotes what he sees as successes; however a deeper dive into her voting record shows, I believe, changes that are not in the best interest of the majority of Reading residents.
Letter writer Mr. Silva writes, “as a result of her work… Reading residents will see a 50% reduction in the cost of outside water use beginning in July.” What Mr. Silva does specify is that approximately 90 households willing to spend thousands of dollars in plumbing and permitting fees, with pools and irrigation systems, will not pay sewer charges for outdoor water use. However, those sewer charges do not just go away, and for the approximately 9400 households without outdoor water meters, their bills will go up, as they pay for sewer charges incurred by those with outdoor water meters, as well as their own sewer charges. I do not have an irrigation system, but I hand water my shrubs and grass when needed, and I fill a pool. I will still have to pay for those outdoor sewer charges, even though I am not using sewer for that water. And so will the approximately 9400 households without second meters. Those 9400 houses will also be paying for the outdoor sewer charges of the people who can afford to install a second meter. So, Ms. Murphy’s vote will lower the water bill of less than 1% of Reading households but the result is that 99% of the households will see a bill increase because of this vote. Ms. Murphy came to this decision after discussing the issue with proponents of second meters.
Ms. Murphy states that hers is a ‘common sense’ approach, and that she talks to residents and business, and staff, to formulate her opinions. Unfortunately, she often listens to a very select group, and ignores recommendations of committees, and Town Meeting. Regarding the recent parking kiosks, Ms. Murphy ignored the recommendation of the Police Department, which advocated turning the kiosks back on, based on data gathered in the past 3 months. Town Meeting, after having discussed the issue for an hour and twenty minutes, approved $110K with the understanding that the cost would be recouped in a couple of years. Ms. Murphy claims fiscal responsibility, but was quick to waste $110k in turning off the kiosks almost immediately, even after the RPD Police Chief stated to the Select Board that initial issues with kiosks had been resolved. Ms. Murphy has not come up with a plan for how that money will be recouped.
Ms. Murphy writes that a controversial CPDC appointment she made last summer was “critical” to CPDC and MBTA votes at town meeting, yet she decided to not appoint two valuable members of the CPDC, against CPDC leadership recommendation. One of the new members she appointed has a less than stellar attendance record. Between the June appointment and November town meeting, there were 8 CPDC meetings, yet one of Ms. Murphy’s critical appointees attended only 3 of the 8 CPDC meetings, and only one in person. Yet Ms. Murphy touts this as one of her accomplishments. Ms. Murphy may say she hopes more people volunteer, but she regularly dismisses their hard work and expert recommendations.
It is important to examine more closely Ms. Murphy’s voting record to see how these votes will materially affect the majority of residents, and not just accept her self-stated record of success. I have done that examination, and I will not be voting for Ms. Murphy for re-election to the Select Board.