The intervention wasn’t about PFAS, or playing fields, or even public health. The coordinated disruption of a Nantucket Board of Health meeting by a majority of the Select Board last Thursday wasn’t a spontaneous expression of concern over open meeting law – it was a calculated demonstration of power, a reminder of who appoints whom, and a preemptive move to control a narrative threatening a key town initiative. The ensuing flurry of open meeting law complaints, filed by both sides of the contentious artificial turf debate, are less about legal violations and more about establishing leverage in a dispute that extends far beyond the merits of synthetic grass.
The immediate trigger was a proposed motion by Board of Health chair Ann Smith to conditionally approve the Nantucket Public Schools’ plan to install turf at Vito Capizzo Stadium. Smith had circulated the motion to fellow board members hours before the meeting, a move flagged by the Select Board as potentially problematic. Simultaneously, three Select Board members – chair Dawn Hill, Tom Dixon, and Brooke Mohr – actively urged Smith to halt discussion, citing concerns about open meeting law violations. This isn’t a case of good government watchdogs alerting a rogue board; it’s a quorum of one board actively policing the proceedings of another, and doing so publicly. Mohr’s assessment – “You are, in my understanding…[in a] very, very grey area here on open meeting law” – wasn’t a legal opinion, but a veiled threat.
This piece references the nantucketcurrent.com report.
The strategic calculus is clear. The Select Board, facing potential roadblocks from the Board of Health over PFAS concerns, chose to publicly question the legitimacy of the Health Board’s process. This tactic serves multiple purposes. It casts doubt on any future decisions made by the Board of Health regarding the turf field, potentially weakening their legal standing if a ban were attempted. It also sends a message to other appointed boards: dissent will be met with scrutiny. This echoes a pattern established during the Sconset Bluff geotube project, where the Select Board systematically removed dissenting voices from the Conservation Commission. The current situation isn’t an isolated incident, but a continuation of a demonstrated willingness to reshape appointed boards to align with the Select Board’s priorities.
Who benefits and who loses? The Nantucket Public Schools, pushing for the turf field after School Committee endorsement, stand to gain. A swift approval, unhindered by Health Board restrictions, allows the project to proceed towards a Town Meeting vote on a debt exclusion override. The Select Board solidifies its control over appointed bodies, reinforcing its authority. Dixon, whose term expires this spring and who has opted not to run for re-election, has little to lose by taking a firm stance. Conversely, the Board of Health’s independence is diminished, and Smith’s position is significantly weakened, particularly as her term also expires this year. Anti-PFAS advocates, while raising legitimate concerns about potential environmental and health impacts, find their arguments sidelined by procedural disputes. The public, caught in the crossfire, loses trust in the transparency of local government.
Historically, this dynamic – a powerful executive body intervening in the deliberations of independent boards – isn’t uncommon. The tactic mirrors instances of state legislatures attempting to influence independent regulatory agencies, or even federal executive branch overreach into the judiciary. The common thread is a desire to control outcomes, often by discrediting the process rather than engaging with the substance of the debate. The key difference here is the scale: Nantucket’s small-town politics amplify the impact of these maneuvers, making the power dynamics starkly visible. The complaints filed by island resident Meghan Perry, a veteran of open meeting law challenges, and junior varsity soccer coach Kate Garrette, highlight the level of polarization and the perceived erosion of public trust.
The Attorney General’s review of the complaints will be crucial, but the outcome is almost secondary. The damage – to the Board of Health’s authority and to public confidence – has already been done. The real political chess move to watch next isn’t whether a violation occurred, but whether the Select Board will leverage this situation to further consolidate control over appointed boards, potentially through changes to appointment procedures or stricter oversight mechanisms. Will they use the pretext of “open meeting law compliance” to demand greater alignment from future appointees? That’s the question that will define the future of governance on Nantucket.
