Transparency, accountability, and the perceived absence of conflicts of interest are what build public trust in local government. The recent discussions about the land deal in Plymouth and the roles played by Select Board members Golden and Canty raise questions for many about whether the public interest was put before political and personal agendas. Did this deal break the law? Maybe not, but elected officials are held to a higher standard than mere legality. It is the residents who are to look up to the board for leadership, sound judgment, and proper recusals to protect the integrity of the process when their participation would otherwise undermine public confidence.
The level of concern expressed by citizens at open meetings and various community sites throughout town indicates the damage to trust. When confidence in those elected to lead has eroded to this degree, then it is incumbent on the electorate to demand accountability. For that reason, I think the residents of Plymouth should seriously consider recalling Golden and Canty. Recalls do not mean that someone is guilty. Instead, recalls are a democratic process that lets voters decide if their elected officials still deserve the public’s trust.
Plymouth calls for leadership that puts transparency, integrity, and the interests of the taxpayers above all else. If the people of Plymouth do not have faith in the judgment of their elected officials, then they should have the right to decide whether new leadership is necessary.
– Christopher Wright
Wright is an adjunct professor/Criminal Justice at Columbia Southern University