To the Editor: In response to a letter to the editor regarding 4 Tannery Lane

To the Editor,

I write in response to Ms. Diane M. Gilbert’s June 20 Letter to the Editor, which is a masterclass in condescension and intrigue. She characterizes the work of our Russells Mills Historic District Commission as “vague, not easily accessible to the public, in other words mysterious.” She dismissively refers to some of our RMHDC members as the  “recently fired members,” casting a shameful pall over them without an utterance of  appreciation or respect for the work they’ve done over the years. Professor Gerard Koot is  Emeritus Chancellor Professor of History at UMass Dartmouth, and he is a contributing  member of our community. And Mr. Michael Woyciechouski who served for years and years as the RMHDC chair should be praised. Lots of time and lots of service – a little respect please. 

Ms. Gilbert castigates the “folks” who live in the village who “should have been aware that the Davoll estate at 4 Tannery Lane was for sale.” These so-called “folks” likely knew it was for sale. What we didn’t know were the more granular details of redevelopment that would impact us as a community.

Neither DATMA nor the Buzzards  Bay Coalition shared much with village folks. While the plan was winding through official  town channels for approval, most abutters were left in the dark. The big reveal came when the RMHDC posted notice of an April 21, 2026 public hearing regarding a Certificate of Appropriateness application, yet even then the BBC’s specific redevelopment plans remained thin and mysterious.

As for the recent tumult surrounding our RMHDC, is there a constructive remedy? Could the Select Board grant a written financial waiver? A standard for such a waiver would determine that the conflict of interest or the financial interest is not so substantial that it would likely to affect the integrity of the services that the municipality expects from the employee. If so, a waiver could be granted in this instance. Considering that in a recent real estate transaction, the title of 4 Tannery Lane passed from one party to another for one dollar on May 6 then the financial interest is de minimis. 

Where do we stand? The RMHDC members have been sacked for their alleged violations of open meeting laws. Has there been a formal finding by the State Ethics Commission after an adjudicatory hearing and a finding of conflict of interest? No town official, or board, or agent of the town can simply opine or declare a conflict. Can we invigorate the “not so substantial” financial test by obtaining written approvals from the Select Board and Town Administrator Cody Haddad clearing the RMHDC of this conflict of interest allegation and restore its integrity and constructive community service?

I would agree with Town Moderator Melissa Haskell’s olive branch suggestion in her recent  letter to the editor, “Reasonable people can disagree. It is the foundation of our democracy.” I would also add, “Reasonable people should show some grace – it’s the foundation of civility.”

James O'Day