The Steamship Authority is on the precipice of change. In a highly anticipated decision, the board last week selected a new general manager, and while contract negotiations are still being finalized, they chose an executive from across the country in San Francisco — a fitting metaphor, as the other option before the board was an internal candidate. The board made a bold declaration that they are moving forward with change, and that is refreshing.
But one recent decision by the board we find troubling. Representatives decided they would no longer answer questions during the public comment section of its public meetings, which was a surprise to those who follow the ferry line closely.
The revelation of the new rule was made public during a board meeting late last month when a Vineyard resident, Jonathan Chatinover, was trying to get a question in. Jim Malkin, the Island’s representative and chair of the board, said while comments will be taken, questions will no longer be answered during the public comment segments of the board meetings. Answers will be provided in writing “at an appropriate time,” if the board, or ferry management, deems it necessary. It’s a shift from before, when the board frequently took and responded to questions.
The Steamship board’s new policy is a puzzling one, given the calls for better transparency. We believe the decision will muffle discourse at board meetings, and will also cut off one of the best ways for the public to get answers and clarity on the workings of the Steamship. Public meetings offer a rare moment when officials and our ferry representatives are in a room together, accessible and unable to hide from questions. Freeing themselves of that obligation may be easier, but it is risky.
While the ferry line board has received pushback on the decision recently, it’s hardly alone. In the past year, our reporters have encountered the same stance at the Oak Bluffs Select Board. In Tisbury, the select board has halted questions from our reporters in public meetings, responding that they aren’t required to answer the questions of the public then and there. Select boards on the Cape have long had the policies in place as well.
This question of transparency and the obligation of responding to the public isn’t unique to the Island. It is increasingly a national problem, in which local officials in every corner of America are not responding to questions from news organizations, according to a series of reports titled “Shut Out,” published last year by Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit organization that advocates for and does research on the importance of a free press.
Even at the highest levels of government, we are finding that more and more institutions of power find it acceptable to simply hand-wave questions with “no comment.”
Compounding the problem, many boards and committees have been holding more and more remote or hybrid meetings since the pandemic. When a town board meeting is held via a video-conferencing platform like Zoom, the moderators can put the reporters quite literally on “mute,” and thereby have a new digital way to wave off a question.
Although we will always advocate for the reporter’s right to ask questions, we can see why town officials get frustrated sometimes at public meetings. Board meetings, especially when a contentious topic is under consideration, can get heated, and these days it seems like all of us are losing our sense of civility. Amid the decline in civility, the public has the tendency to hurl questions at town officials, and often repeat statements from past speakers, and meetings can go off the rails for hours and hours. Submitting questions in writing or approaching board members after a meeting instead can keep a semblance of decorum.
But for the press, and the public, the ability to ask questions of our representatives in public settings is a fundamentally important mechanism that needs to be maintained.
It leads to transparent governance, and holds officials accountable, especially if there are lingering questions about a certain board member or issue. If reached by email or after a meeting, they have the option of not responding. Asked a pointed question at a meeting, the spotlight is turned on them. Answering to the public is a part of the job of an elected or appointed official.
Responding to questions in public meetings, while it may be difficult, we believe is an obligation of our elected and appointed officials. The public’s willingness to raise questions should be embraced, not shunned. Siloing information from the public weakens democratic processes and undermines the community’s ability to have a say in decisions where they have a stake.
While not all Island towns have this policy of not responding to questions in public, we worry about the trend in that direction, which will ultimately weaken the faith in our institutions.
At the Steamship Authority, there is a chance for a culture change. We hope that Alex Kryska, selected to be the next general manager, will embrace questions from the public, and find ways to uphold transparency. We are optimistic. During the hiring process, board members derided some people in the public for raising hell, posting on social media, and filing numerous records requests that ultimately led to an undisclosed number of candidates dropping their names from consideration for the job. We say good riddance, and applaud Kryska for not bowing to the pressure. After all, the Steamship — and our lead boards and committees — serve us, the public.
Government bodies play a game with public input (putting it at the end), not answering a question and then not capturing what is said in the subsequent minutes. Ask me how I know? The Land Bank operates this way and this government body (Steamship Authority) does the same. What has to happen is state representatives need to strengthen requirements that increase transparency. You see these bodies can perform better but they choose not to. It shouldn’t be a choice. They should be mandated to do so!
I am not willing as a CEO to be the target of hundreds of civilians who know nothing of what I am accountable for peppering me with attacks. I work for the Board and report to the Board not to you folks. Written questions yes and I will respond. I am not accountable to you. You may have concerns as to how the SSA is operating but you have no equity in our company which is State owned.
Any newspaper is supposed to research facts. You did not. The SSA is an “Authority”. Here is a quote from mass.gov: “The Open Meeting Law does not require that public bodies allow public comment or public participation during meetings — to the contrary, the Open Meeting Law specifies that no person shall address the public body without permission of the chair. However, the Attorney General encourages public bodies to allow public comment and/or public participation when feasible. Because the Open Meeting Law does not require that public bodies allow for public comment or public participation during meetings at all, the manner that public bodies may choose to accept comment or questions is outside the scope of the Open Meeting Law. Public hearings, on the other hand, are governed by separate laws that impose additional requirements, and may require opportunity for public comment or testimony. Those requirements are outside the scope of the Open Meeting Law and therefore do not fall within the Division of Open Government’s jurisdiction. Public bodies and members of the public should consult with legal counsel for guidance on the requirements for public hearings.” Malkin has every right to prohibit meeting comments.
Isabella – the law says: “we encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit”. The questions asked in all of the meetings I have attended are 1) civil, 2) professional, and 3) on topic. So, is there a reason the SSA board is not following this guidance from the AG? This editorial is spot on.
The MV Times editorial says that it would be among best practices for the SSA Board to accept unfettered public comment during its meetings. The Office of the Attorney General on its website states that “We encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit.” The AGO website explains that “Although the Open Meeting Law does not require public bodies to allow public comment during meetings, we encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit. In addition, we note that the Supreme Judicial Court explained that content-based restrictions on public comment may violate the portion of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protecting the right to assemble and the right to free speech.” The editorial does not say the SSA Board is required to accept public comment. Public comment at SSA Board meeting has rarely extended beyond five minutes in total. It is not clear what problem SSA Board Chair Malkin is trying to solve.
Comments are closed.