To the Editor: Public Participation Is Not an Ethics Violation

To the Editor,

I would like to respond to former attorney Janet Anthony Mastronadi Stanton’s letter dated April 27, 2026, as well as comments made by Russells Mills Historic District Commission (“RMHDC”) member Doug Balder before the Select Board on May 12, 2026.

Ms. Mastronadi Stanton’s letter is focused on accusations and speculation rather than facts. Most troubling was her assertion of a “State Ethics Commission violation” for speaking at a public hearing regarding 4 Tannery Lane because I serve on the Board of Directors of the petitioner.

That accusation is false.

Neither I nor any member of my family owns abutting property or has any financial interest in the former Davoll property or the disposition of the structure. I spoke as a resident of Dartmouth participating in a public process open to all citizens.

Apparently, Ms. Mastronadi Stanton believes that serving as Town Moderator precludes me from exercising the same rights as every other Dartmouth resident to speak at a public hearing. It does not. Public office does not strip citizens of their right to participate in matters of public concern.

Disagreement over public policy does not constitute an ethics violation. Ms. Mastronadi Stanton’s interpretation of the conflict of interest law reflects a troubling misunderstanding of the standards she so casually invoked. Public accusations of ethical misconduct should be made carefully, responsibly, and with factual support, particularly by individuals holding leadership positions on public boards.

Instead, Ms. Mastronadi Stanton, chose to publicly speculate about ethics violations and advocate for her position as an abutter rather than administer the commission’s statutory responsibilities. 

Her letter also raises significant concerns regarding transparency and governance at the Russell Mills Historic District Commission itself. The Commission has failed to file meeting minutes and has only filed one of its decisions regarding Certificates of Appropriateness since September 21, 2021, a period of nearly five years. 

In addition, unlike most Town boards and committees, RMHDC meetings are not recorded. A public body exercising significant authority over residents’ property rights should operate with transparency and accountability.

Unfounded accusations appear to be a pattern for some members of the commission. At the Select Board meeting on May 12, RMHDC member Doug Balder similarly asserted that I had an unspecified ethical issue relating to the upcoming Town Meeting and the Community Preservation warrant article concerning a conservation restriction at 4 Tannery Lane. Curiously, Mr. Balder chose to publicly allege an ethical issue regarding a Town Meeting that will not be held until June 2, 2026.

Had Mr. Balder taken the time to investigate the matter before making public accusations, he would have learned that whenever a Town Meeting warrant article has involved an organization on whose board I served, I have consistently recused myself from moderating both the discussion and vote on that article. That practice has been followed on every such occasion and will continue.

Once again, public accusations of ethical misconduct appear to have been made first, with little regard for the facts or longstanding practices.

Reasonable people can disagree. It is the foundation of our democracy. Residents should be concerned with the growing willingness of some individuals to use accusations of ethical misconduct against those with whom they disagree. That approach can have a chilling effect on public debate, undermines confidence in local government, and discourages civic participation by residents. 

Melissa E. Haskell
Dartmouth Town Moderator