To the Editor:

I add my voice to those asserting that the Select Board should NOT support the cease fire resolution. Several writers before me have enumerated many well-reasoned arguments against involvement of our local governance in such a controversial issue.

I come at the question from a somewhat different angle. I have asked the Select Board on numerous occasions to cite the source(s) from which they have authority to comment as a board on articles not strictly related to Williamstown issues. Does the authority come from the Williamstown charter? The Massachusetts General Laws? Case law? Where? If the SB or anyone has responded to my inquiry, I have missed it.

Should not the authority issue be settled before we even get to the merits of the resolution? Our town governance with its town meeting is touted as being a citizen-friendly model for legislative democracy. Is it? Look closely at some of our seemingly democratic citizens' petitions.

In recent Williamstown history, two articles were touted by proponents as being "passed unanimously." "Passed unanimously" at the end of a very uncomfortable town meeting when many participants had already left is factually translated as 222 votes out of a population of many thousands. This is democracy? Were even a healthy minority of voices heard? Would these articles have passed if put to a vote in the privacy of a voting booth?

Furthermore, proponents interpreted the passage of these article as a mandate. The result was a huge amount — some say "well over a million dollars" — to support institutions and promote programs that many found morally offensive —even seriously at odds with — their religious beliefs. This is democracy?

Town meeting may seem democratic. Those who carefully reviewed the Williamstown Charter deserve our thanks and appreciation for a grueling task well done. But, particularly in light of vast improvements in communicating, more can be done to ensure that many voices who wish to be heard are indeed heard.

The iBerkshire coverage of Monday's SB meeting was replete with words of passion. "I will never forgive you." Speaking and acting "from the heart" was encouraged. Passion certainly has a place in politics, but should passion without prudence guide us? Should feelings trump thought, even in local politics?

What does the Williamstown community want? Many opponents of recent Williamstown policies and practices have been strangely silent. Do we want a small group of albeit-elected officials to speak for us on matters of morality, even religion? Is solidarity a good thing? Can there be room for diversity in solidarity?

And to those who have been and still are fearful to speak, please know you have ample support to freely speak your minds. And even your hearts a bit if you so choose. You might even learn that your silence has been and is unwarranted because you really are the majority.

Donna Carlstrom Wied
Williamstown, Mass.

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Events at Williams

• Photos