Pittsfield’s new advisory board aims to help city confront mental health and substance use disorder issues
We welcome Pittsfield Mayor Peter Marchetti’s leadership in establishing a committee to guide Pittsfield’s policy response to the growing mental health and addiction problem. This was a central promise of his campaign last year, bringing together a wide range of diverse expertise to consider how the city can reduce the impact on public safety and quality of life for many residents. We agree on the need to bring home perspectives into the discussion. Feeling.
However, we disagree with the Mayor on one important aspect of the newly established committee. That means we believe the work of the committee should be made public.
Last year, then-mayoral candidate Marchetti appointed a task force tasked with targeting deficiencies in available services and supports for mental health and addiction patients and making existing programs more efficient and effective. He promised to establish a society. Mayor Marchetti argued that such an approach could help curb crime, homelessness, panhandling and other growing concerns without further straining the city’s already shaky budget base. are doing.
However, after taking office, Mayor Marchetti opposed the “select committee” model, opting instead to create an advisory committee that would report solely to the mayor’s office. Such bodies established to advise individual officials on decisions for which they are solely responsible are not subject to the state’s open meetings law. This means that the committee, ostensibly created to benefit the people of Pittsfield, is not allowed to announce meetings, publish agendas or minutes, or conduct business in public. Nothing will be forced.
Mayor Marchetti said he chose this model because it gives the group greater privacy to discuss the nature of these harmful issues in a way that the mayor said may not be “appropriate to do on television.” said.
Mayor Marchetti added: “We want people to be able to speak freely about this issue without having to cover it up.” “Doing it in public can make it even more difficult.”
We also want people with important expertise and relevant backgrounds to speak freely, but the Mayor is concerned that this will make it more difficult for them to speak publicly, but privately. are concerned that there are pitfalls to speaking out privately. Whether or not the mayor thinks the committee’s subject matter is suitable for television, the reality is that many voters are well aware of the dangers and consequences of the mental health crisis and addiction scourge. . Prioritization of issues is welcome. Those same voters deserve to see the more comprehensive evaluation the mayor is seeking and the difficult but necessary conversations that could inform new public policy positions.
We agree that the members of the Advisory Committee do not wish to surface the facts on the ground or the options for action available. However, the implication that this critical analysis must be swept under the surface or kept out of public view is that efforts must be made to eliminate these pernicious social ills if we are to fully expose and treat them. It will build up the wall of stigma that the mayor rightly described.
The Mayor has already appointed a full advisory committee, comprised of 30 members, whose work and advocacy will address various aspects of the twin crises of mental health and addiction. confronting. From medical and social workers to EMS and law enforcement to safety nets and civic groups, the mayor is clear about how these pressing issues are impacting Pittsfield and what more can be done. , is putting together a team that can provide the big picture he’s looking for. It needs to be done rationally at the local level.
Why exclude the public’s views and opinions when casting such a wide net? That the majority of appointees are intended to generate an inclusive and informed debate? is clear, but I worry that the size of the committee will make it unwieldy. That’s why we need more public observation, not more, to scrutinize the committee’s productivity and inform residents whether this effort is producing practical results. In addition to observing, citizens can also provide valuable insights.
Furthermore, the “advisory board” model, which ignores compliance with open meetings laws, implies that the only topics to be addressed are those related to actions that the mayor can take unilaterally. But these issues are bigger than that, and the Mayor knows that neither his office nor any single organization can address this complex and growing crisis on its own. Will the commission publish meetings and minutes that raise issues and actions outside of the mayor’s direction, or will that be a limiting factor in the breadth of discussion? This is a community-wide and national issue. The synthesis of perspectives provided by this government-originated initiative should be made available to the public.
The exemption in the Massachusetts Open Meetings Law is unfortunate but clear. It is the mayor’s prerogative to shield from public view what we consider to be sensible initiatives. Still, in the weeks leading up to the commission’s first scheduled meeting, we urge him to reconsider his opaque approach. Failing that, we ask the advisory committee to open as many meetings as possible to the public. Otherwise, the mayor said, this commission would not only hide from Pittsfield residents the necessary dialogue convened on behalf of Pittsfield residents, but it would also be a barrier to truly confronting these wicked problems. There is a danger of legitimizing the stigma that has been acknowledged by
