An open letter to ZBA Chair Michael Main:
I’m writing to express a deep concern – not about the specifics of a special permit or the details of a zoning case – but about the treatment of public speakers during the March 3, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. What took place that evening was more than disappointing. It struck at the very heart of our democratic process and the public’s constitutional right to participate in it.
At the beginning of the meeting, you rightly stated:
“Mr. Landers has a right to petition this board to do this… I don’t want anybody to think that their rights are superseded by somebody else’s.”
That is a principle I wholeheartedly agree with. However, throughout the meeting, your handling of public comment did not reflect that even-handedness. Time and again, residents were interrupted, cut off, or admonished for sharing perspectives that you deemed repetitive, emotional, or outside the board’s jurisdiction. You said:
“We’re just hearing personal stories… We have to have facts to deal with.”
“The minute it gets repetitious… I’m going to shut it off.”
“We’re not going to get into a discussion about what has harmed or wronged or done for generations.”
“We’ve made enough emotional statements.”
Chairperson Main, with respect, this is not how public discourse in a democracy works. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This right is not contingent on whether the grievance is convenient, quantifiable, or tidy. The three-minute comment period should not be viewed as a favor extended by the board—but as a safeguard of public participation. The residents who showed up that night – some of whom had never spoken at a town meeting before – deserved the full dignity of their time.
Whether a comment comes in the form of personal experience, moral upset, logistical concern, generational pain, or environmental science, it is valid. To suggest that “emotional” or “repetitive” testimony is somehow less worthy of being heard misses the point of public comment entirely. Public testimony is not just data for decision-making – it is a moral barometer for public officials.
When a young indigenous woman stood before the board and spoke from her lived experience, she was met not with compassion, but with defensiveness and interruption. When a resident quoted a proverb about poisoned rivers and trees cut down, you dismissed it as “an emotional statement.” When the crowd applauded a speaker, you snapped, “Let’s just get this over with.”
These were not isolated incidents. Unfortunately, it seems “let’s just get this over with” is your attitude towards the public’s input, and that is of deep concern to many.
As chair of a public board, your job is not just to manage meetings efficiently, but to steward the public’s trust. That means letting people speak – even if their words are uncomfortable, inconvenient, or outside the bounds what the Board uses in their decision-making process. If you truly believe, as you said, in keeping “a very, very, very level playing field,” then all voices must be treated with respect, not just the ones that come through attorneys or consultants.
Each speaker has three minutes. That time belongs to them. Not to the board. Not to the chair. To them.
My request is simple: Three minutes is a short amount of time, let the public use it as they see fit.
I urge you, in future meetings, to value the input of the public. These are our neighbors, our friends, our family. Let them speak. Let them be heard. You don’t have to agree with them. You don’t have to act on or respond to every comment. But you must let them speak.
– Mark Pulsinelli
Pulsinelli is a precinct 1 Town Meeting member.