By Marty Benson
The following statement was read at the Acton Select Board Meeting on June 2, 2025.
Tonight, I would like to address a recent action of the Select Board which constituted an impermissible infringement on a citizen’s free speech rights. At the recent Town Meeting, Question #1 pertained to the funding and construction of a new public works building. The Acton Select Board was in favor of the question, whereas the Finance Committee opposed it.
In the weeks before Town Meeting, Finance Committee Member Greg Jarboe, submitted a letter to the Acton Exchange outlining the committee’s objections to the proposed question. Additionally, he was recorded reading his statement by Acton TV, who later posted the video on its YouTube account. Soon thereafter, the Finance Committee was contacted by the Town Manager and were informed that the sharing of Mr. Jarboe’s recorded statement violated Campaign Finance laws. The Finance Committee was advised that it should request that Acton TV remove all links of the recorded video. However, the Acton Select Board’s video statement supporting Question #1 was permitted to remain on Acton TV’s YouTube site.
Multiple Select Board members justified this decision by citing a previous March 15, 2024 memorandum written by Town Counsel, regarding Fin Com’s position on last year’s override. The Memo concluded by saying, “Fin Com may not distribute this presentation or other material regarding the override to ‘voters beyond the scope of such meetings.’” The memo cites this quote from Page 13 of the OCPF, Campaign Finance Guide. However, the full sentence on Page 13 actually reads, “They are not, however, allowed to distribute such materials to voters beyond the scope of such meetings at public expense.” Mr. Jarboe’s written statement and YouTube video filmed by Acton TV did not come at the public’s expense and thus both were permissible under Campaign Finance laws.
By omitting the phrase “at public expense”, Town Counsel and the Select Board materially misrepresented the campaign finance laws to insinuate that Mr. Jarboe was not permitted to share his opinion as a member of Fin Com. When in actuality the Campaign Finance guide makes it clear that the laws do not “restrict the speech of public officials concerning a ballot question.” In fact, the guide notes that “If public officials were not allowed to discuss or take positions on ballot questions that affect the public they serve, they would be hampered in that service.” The misrepresentation of this law effectively hampered Mr. Jarboe’s service to the Town and its citizens.
What is evidently clear is that the Select Board did not want this opposing viewpoint to be shared in the marketplace of ideas prior to Town Meeting. The Select Board’s material misrepresentation of this law in an attempt to coerce the Finance Committee to remove this video was a blatant act of viewpoint discrimination. This Board owes Mr. Jarboe an apology. Further, these illegal speech restrictions implemented by the Select Board need to cease as they are an attack on individual free speech rights, as well as, the bedrock principles of our democratic republic.
Leave a Reply