LtE: Select Board Member Behavior

What is the purpose of Select Board policies if they are not followed by the members of this board? Section 1.2.7 Rule 4 of the Select Board Operating Procedures states, “Every Select Board member shall respectfully address the chair, shall not speak until recognized by the chair, shall speak to the question under debate and shall avoid making disparaging comments about individuals”. And Rule 7 states, “Select Board members who have a financial interest in any matter before the Select Board for consideration is required by M.G.L. c.286A, §19 to recuse themselves from participating in Select Board deliberations. Members of the public who have a financial interest in any matter that comes before the Select Board for consideration and any person whose employer has such an interest are encouraged to disclose such interest or interests before speaking on such matter.”

Below is the public comment that I read at the Select Board meeting last night:

Good evening, Taylor Gregory, Pleasant Street.

On November 19, Mr. Bacci and Mr. Haley attacked my character when they called me a liar and misrepresented my public comments from prior meetings. During public comment on October 8, I stated “Mr. Bacci is a paid pickleball instructor that works in Reading”. Let me clarify, Mr. Bacci is a paid pickleball instructor who advertises to Reading residents in Reading Facebook groups and thus benefits financially from increasing the popularity of pickleball in Reading. (See below for photos). While allocating the remaining ARPA money, $87,000 was allocated to pickleball without any prior due diligence or proposals for work outlined to encumber the funds by the end of the year. I want to be clear, my issue is not with pickleball or that Mr. Bacci is an instructor, but it is the favoritism and the lack of disclosure at the beginning of these discussions that is troubling and goes against Select Board policies.

I do not appreciate being called a liar and subsequently told I shouldn’t be on a committee that I worked 13 months to establish as retaliation for holding this board accountable for its actions. On October 29, I outlined the criteria from the State Ethics Commission for when a financial conflict of interest becomes an issue and ASKED Mr. Bacci and Mr. Haley to clarify the guidance they received from the Ethics Commission regarding MBTA communities because I believed similar criteria applied to the tax rate discussion. Mr. Bacci and Mr. Haley are both commercial property owners in town, when they vote on the tax rate for commercial businesses, they are voting on something that will have a direct financial impact for them and their families. Again, this goes against Select Board and State Ethics policies because the commercial tax rate does not apply to at least 10% of Reading residents.

I find it hypocritical that Mr. Bacci and Mr. Haley attempted to hold me to a higher standard than they hold themselves. I am willing to clarify my statements when there is confusion or a misunderstanding. Mr. Haley, we are still waiting for you to correct the record of when you falsely accused your colleague, Mr. Dockser, of blackmail and extortion.

I hope Mr. Bacci and Mr. Haley will reflect on their actions over the past year and commit to doing better moving forward. I urge you both to set an example of what accountability means for public elected officials.

Taylor Gregory

Pleasant Street