Response to Ishani Tewari and the Speculators about a “Quid Pro Quo” Between Chair Gotti and the Bean Family

Response to Ishani Tewari and the Speculators about a “Quid Pro Quo” Between Chair Gotti and the Bean Family

Ms. Tewari, you are intelligent and passionate in support of the cause that you support, which I respect. However, what you are doing in perpetuating the “speculation” by unidentified people that there has been a quid pro quo between Chair Rob Gotti and the Chuck Bean is wrong in so many ways.

Do you actually believe they would risk their reputations and freedom for the campaign contributions that you have uncovered through public records? (It certainly would be a crime if Mr. Gotti committed an official act on behalf of Mr. Bean in exchange for the contribution.)

What would Chair Gotti benefit through this arrangement? Assistance in being elected to the Select Board -- a job that pays virtually nothing (look it up); a job that requires hundreds of hours of his time, and as it turns out, subjects him to unending criticism and baseless accusations.

What would Mr. Bean get out of this arrangement for his $1,250 campaign contributions (that’s the total he made over two 2021/2024 election cycles)? Aren’t campaign contributions made to someone that we believe in and that we want to see elected?

Following the logic of the “speculators”, apparently Mr. Bean now has Chair Gotti in his debt and has used that to influence him to file a lawsuit against the Land Trust for the benefit of the Bean family.

The flaws in this logic are too numerous to list, but I will try anyway:

1) The Select Board is comprised of three people; any action requires a vote. In the case of the lawsuit, it was unanimous, rendering Mr. Gotti’s vote meaningless. Had the other Select Board members voted against the lawsuit, it would have been defeated.

2) The lawsuit was put before the Conservation Commission; they voted unanimously to approve it.

3) Town Counsel Ahearn (not Chair Gotti) tried to negotiate a compromise with the Land Trust’s attorney, which ended up in this lawsuit.

4) If the Town wins the lawsuit, it merely confirms that they can allow farming to be conducted on the property, not for the Bean Family to farm it.

6) If the Town wins and decides to allow farming on the property, they will, as required by law, put it out for bid. As Mr. McFarland’s niece made clear, he is willing to buy the land for over $400,000. Nothing will stop him from bidding to lease the land.

Clearly, Chair Gotti does not have the power to direct the Town to initiate a lawsuit, so apparently the “quid pro quo” that is being anonymously alleged was wasted.

Consider an alternative: Chair Gotti wants to see farming survive in Westwood and is doing what he thinks is right to help make that happen. The other Select Board members, Conservation Commission and Town Counsel all agree. The lawsuit is simply asking the court to decide if the Land Trust is being reasonable in denying the Town the ability to allow farming on the property – which the Town owns. If the Town prevails, Westwood’s residents will still have the ability to voice their opinions on how it is actually used.

Presently, as far as I can tell, the Westwood residents have no say in how the land is used; a small group of unelected people at the Land Trust make those decisions.

I think we all know it is not polite to spread rumors about people; significantly worse is spreading rumors to imply that they have committed a crime.

Here’s an Idea:

If you want to better understand the lawsuit and make an informed decision about it, read Peter Fenn’s analysis of it. He has over 40 years of relevant experience, and his wife is an environmental lawyer with substantial relevant experience. In support of the Land Trust, many lawyers have weighed in with their opinions regarding the Conservation Restriction and the lawsuit that has ensued. I have not seen any of them challenge or dispute Mr. Fenn’s analysis and legal opinion.

I think sometimes people forget that being a lawyer simply means that you went to law school and graduated, and, if practicing, you passed the bar. I haven’t seen any of the lawyers (with the exception of Mr. Fenn) that expressed their opinions identify what is their area of expertise.

We are past the point where transparency is an issue, it is in litigation. It would be foolish to drop the lawsuit and walk away from the $12,000 already invested.

If you want in-person Select Board meetings and more transparency, start a petition that actually requests that, and present it to Select Board, Town Counsel and Town Administrator. You don’t need a Special Town Meeting to let them know that the voters want their voices heard in person.

Don’t place Westwood’s last farm in the crossfire of your dispute with the Select Board. (Ms. Sibley’s presentation to the FinCom could not have made it more clear that is what the petition is actually about.)

Vote against each of the four articles and let’s hear what the Court has to say.

Also for those interested in how many Westwood residents support the Bean Farm, 497 went to their farm and signed their petition (another 542 non-residents signed). Like George in It’s a Wonderful Life, the Beans have a lot of friends in Town.