Have You No Shame, Matthew?
Ten days ago, on January 22, town counsel gave your board an update on the regulations that govern cannabis HCAs—like the one your wife has.
I was at that meeting with Rob. In looking over the recording, neither Rob nor I are ever on camera. But you saw me there—as did every other person at the Big Kids’ Table: Karen, Gary, Chuck, Mark, Ryan, and Jim.
Rob and I sat in the same row as Amy Tarlow-Lewis, who is on camera whenever LCTV opted to point the camera in the audience’s direction.
Go HERE to where that 47-minute discussion starts and where you, Matthew leave the room, having recused yourself from the discussion on your wife’s HCA, aka, her license—and by extension, your license—to print money:
You took “the long way” out of the room, I suspect, so you wouldn’t have to walk past Rob and me. I recall the word “coward” coming to mind and couldn’t help but think it arose in the minds of others as well.
Town counsel spoke for nine minutes and then left the podium at 53:05:
Moments later, the woman in the periwinkle sweater got up to leave:
It was soon after that woman left that you came back into the room and sat in the audience, on the other side of the aisle from Amy and Rob and me, in the back row and out of view of the audience-facing camera.
But I saw you there.
And Rob saw you there.
And Amy, after I pointed out your presence in the room, saw you there.
I suspect that every single person at the BKT also saw you there.
Here’s what I think happened:
When the woman stepped out, you asked her if the discussion was over, and she, believing that it was, told you as much, triggering you to come back into the room, where you sat—while your colleagues and town counsel continued to discuss cannabis HCAs—for 38 minutes (give or take).
The arrogance you displayed by remaining in the room was nearly as disappointing as the apathy your fellow board members showed relative to your (unethical, entitled, privileged, who’s to say?) presence in the room.
On the way home, Rob said that Gary—as chair—ought to have “done something about that” because “Gary knows better.”
While I agreed with Rob, I did make the point that Gary knew or should have known that your September 5, 2023 statement about my appointment to FinComm would be slanderous (potentially exposing 01460 to a lawsuit) and did nothing to stop you, Matthew, (an agent for the town) from saying what you did from your elected seat at the BKT.
I opted not to file an ethics complaint for your September 5, 2023 stunt for three reasons. First, I was confident you knew before even opening your mouth that your behavior was unethical. Second, why waste a State Ethics Commission’s investigator’s time telling you something you already knew? And lastly, objectively, you looked like a bully/whiner (hard to say which) who was abusing the power of his office.
I’m also not filing an ethics complaint about your coming back into the room on January 22nd. The Select Board has a Code of Conduct. Your peers board members can address this with you if they want—or not. They didn’t say a word about what you did on September 5, 2023, so hard to know if they are going to care much about what you did ten days ago.
Ethics, shmethics, right?
Well, on January 29, 2024, someone shared with me that you had a very recent (I think it happened on the 23rd) meeting over coffee with an elected public official.
I asked you about this on the 30th:
Those two little blue icons next to the time stamp?
When they’re both blue, it means the text was received.
I waited 24 hours to hear back from you before sending this text on the 31st, aka yesterday:
Same two blue dots.
I waited 11 hours before pivoting to email, subject line “Third Attempt:”
As of this moment, you still have not answered my very simple question.
It seems I answered my own question: You have no shame.
TTYS,
Jkb