DALTON, Mass. — A heated discussion concerning sidewalks during Monday night's Select Board meeting resulted in the acting chair calling a recess to cool the situation. 

 

The debate stemmed from the two articles on the town meeting warrant for May 6 at 7 p.m. at Wahconah Regional High School. 

 

One proposes purchasing a sidewalk paver for $64,000 so sidewalks can be paved or repaired for less money, but they will use asphalt rather than concrete. The other would amend the town's bylaws to mandate the use of concrete for all future sidewalks. 

 

The article on concrete sidewalks was added to the warrant through a citizen petition led by resident Todd Logan. 

 

The board was determining whether to recommend the article when member John Boyle took the conversation in a new direction by addressing how the petition was brought about. 

 

"I just have a comment about this whole procedure. I'm very disappointed in the fact that you [Logan] have been working, lobbying various groups and implementing this plan and filed this petition six weeks ago. You never had any respect for the Select Board and …" Boyle said. 

 

Before Boyle could finish his statement, which was directed to Logan, who was in the audience, Chair Joe Diver called point of order via Zoom. 

 

Diver was unable to attend the meeting in person and Vice Chair Daniel Esko was leading the meeting in person. 

 

"I think our Select Board member Mr. Boyle, should address his comments to the topic and not directly to the petitioner," Diver said. 

 

Although Boyle apologized and thanked Diver for bringing the issue to his attention, he disregarded the advice and continued addressing his comments to Logan, resulting in Diver calling point of order for a second time. 

 

"Hey, Joe, can we have a discussion on this board without you butting in and telling us how to conduct ourselves. I'm talking to Mr. Logan, OK. Please don't interrupt me again," Boyle said. 

 

He proceeded to direct his comments to Logan rather than the topic, expressing his frustration with how quickly this article came to be and how the board was not included in the conversation.

 

Diver called point of order for a third time. This time Esko also directed Boyle to address his comments to the board. 

 

"I think [Boyle] certainly has the right to his view, and he's not incorrect that there was very little time for engagement, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying that we weren't consulted, but at the same time I don't know that I want to get into a postmortem of how this article came to be. I don't think that's helpful," Esko said. 

 

In a follow-up conversation with iBerkshires, Logan clarified that the development of the petition began with a private conversation with three of the Select Board members on March 4. 

 

He went on to write the petition on March 5 and gathered 22 signatures within 24 hours, and handed it in by the March 7 deadline. 

 

How the article came to be does not matter. It's done. Residents have a right to file a petition, Select Board member Marc Strout said.

 

"I think we need to leave it at that," Esko said and allowed one comment from Logan. 

 

Logan attempted to shift the conversation back to the article "because that is more important," he said. 

 

He then told the board that he had been speaking to the Finance Committee chair, William Droshen, about funding issues and various methods of funding sidewalks. 

 

"The petition that I'm working on is to establish a stabilization fund for sidewalks funded interestingly enough, John, with $30,000," Logan said, referencing Boyle's comment from earlier in the meeting where he said the town should be putting more funds whether it's $15,000, $20,0000 or $30,000 in the highway department budget for sidewalk repairs. 

 

Before Logan could finish talking about his idea to create a stabilization fund he was cut off by Boyle, who sarcastically called a point of order. 

 

Logan later clarified that the stabilization fund would be funded annually with $30,000 and noted that this could be accomplished with a future petition.

 

"Point of order Mr. Chairman," Boyle said as Esko proceeded to advise him that there is no need to go down that road. 

 

Despite Esko's attempts to defuse the situation, Boyle said to Diver, "What, why can’t you say nothin." At the same time, Logan attempted to say he was trying to give Boyle credit for his previous statement.

 

"Mr. Boyle, please," Esko said over the top of Boyle’s comments, while Boyle continued, "No, I don’t gotta put up with this shit," he said. 

 

With tensions high, Strout called for a 10 minute recess. 

 

When the members returned, tensions were not as high and a motion was made not to recommend the article.

 

The decision narrowly passed 3-2, with Dan Esko, Robert Bishop and John Boyle voting for the motion and Joe Diver and Marc Strout against.

 

Diver said on Tuesday that because he was remote, the vice chair acts as chair, so it was Esko's responsibility to step in and control the tone. 

 

"I think it is inappropriate for a [board] member to question a citizen petitioner on on their approach to that topic," Diver said. 

 

"The board member should have addressed the actual article and the bylaw structure that is being voted on at town meeting, that was the purpose of the agenda item. The purpose of the agenda item was not to debate the issue with the petitioner."

 

Anyone can call a point of order, so when Boyle addressed the petitioner, and Esko was not stepping in, Diver called a point of order. 

 

"There's no requirement for petitioner to meet with department heads or go through finance committees or go through all these hoops and hurdles, on any issue," Diver said.

 

"The citizen petition is there for the citizens to engage in democracy and bring things forward. They just need to meet the requirement of the 10 signatures on any topic that they want. So, I think Boyle was completely out of line in the way that he was treating [Logan] last night." 

 

There is no recourse to prevent a situation like this to happen in the future, Diver said 

 

"Unless we file a censure against the Select Board member behaving in that manner, which we haven't talked about doing," he said. 

 

"That would be the only recourse we would have in such a situation. The other recourse is let the voters speak when that particular board member is up for re-election."