In a rocky Zoom session, select board unites to adopt anti-racism declaration

January 20, 2021  |  By Lisa Scagliotti 

Meeting on the evening of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the Waterbury Select Board voted unanimously Monday to adopt an anti-racism declaration as an official statement of the town government. 

Titled a “Declaration of Inclusion,” the statement was suggested by the Waterbury Area Anti-Racism Coalition, a grassroots community organization formed last summer. 

The statement says:

“Waterbury condemns racism and welcomes all people, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender, identity or expression, age, or disability, and will protect these classes to the fullest extent of the law. As a town, we formally condemn discrimination in all of its forms and commit to fair and equal treatment of everyone in our community. Waterbury has and will continue to be a place where individuals can live freely and express their opinion.” 

The measure was adopted after a vigorous discussion at the start of the board’s third of four January meetings - a weekly schedule to focus on drafting the 2021 budget for the March Town Meeting ballot. 

The meeting was particularly rocky for several reasons. Frequent interruptions from one member of the public punctuated the board’s first discussion of the anti-racism declaration.

Later during a review of the draft Town Meeting Day warning, the board had its first “hack” since shifting to online video meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several boisterous individuals on the internet logged onto the session, appearing to be in a different Zoom meeting and having a separate simultaneous conversation. 

Town Clerk Carla Lawrence who runs the video conference calls quickly managed to eject the virtual interlopers and the meeting progressed. 

Meanwhile, Chair Mark Frier logging in via audio only from home dealt with spotty internet service while an internet hiccup at the town offices where Lawrence and Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk were located affected their computers. Board member Katie Martin assisted with sharing budget documents from her screen. 

That process was slow and challenging. “Oh I can’t wait til we can have regular meetings in person again soon,” a weary Shepeluk remarked about halfway through the exercise. 

The board is expected to adopt a proposed budget and finalize the town meeting warning at its Jan. 25 meeting.

Defending an anti-racism message    

Board member Mike Bard opened the meeting as Frier was running late. After a few quick items of routine business, no one volunteered any remarks when Bard asked for public comment.

Bard introduced and read the anti-racism declaration which was proposed for the board to adopt and post on the town website. 

Board member Chris Viens said that he had heard from anti-racism coalition member Maroni Minter about the declaration but they had only exchanged messages and didn’t connect to talk about it before Monday’s meeting. 

In November, Viens stepped down as chair of the select board after a public backlash to a proposal he made during a legislative candidate forum. A candidate for the Vermont House at the time, Viens suggested making police forces more racially diverse in order to match officers by race to individuals involved in the calls they respond to. Minter led a petition calling for Viens to resign from the board.  

Viens said he wanted to hear more about the reasons behind the “Declaration of Inclusion” being offered to the board. The discussion veered to equal opportunity language in labor laws and Shepeluk offered to clarify saying that the measure serves as a “philosophical statement” rather than a pledge to obey the law. 

“You can abide by the law and still be a racist. So, what this is asking the select board to do is to call racism what it is … and say we’re not going to tolerate that attitude. There are plenty of people that can stick up a poster that says ‘We’re an equal opportunity employer,’ but they might still be racist,” Shepeluk said. 

The anti-racism coalition requested that the board “adopt this statement to condemn racism for what it is,” he continued.

Shepeluk was then interrupted by a woman from the public on the call. “Why do they feel like they need to do that? Why?” asked Kathi Tarrant, a local musician, singer and music teacher. 

“I’m not telling you why. I’m just telling you what it says,” Shepeluk replied. 

“I”m just concerned about what that means from a legal standpoint,” Tarrant replied. “If the select board agrees to something like that there must be legal implications involved that we don’t know about.”

She then offered a hypothetical example of how a rejected applicant for a job in Waterbury might claim that racial or other discrimination was a reason they were not hired by a company. Shepeluk noted that laws exist to protect against discrimination and individuals may file lawsuits if they believe their civil rights are violated. 

Bard said that adopting the anti-racism statement did not carry any legal significance or constraints. “I don’t think there’s any negative connotations to what is included here.” 

Talking over board members, Tarrant suggested it carried “legal connotations” and asked, “Why is this even breached? Why is a subject like this right now breached at all? We live in Vermont. You know this is like the first state that was anti-slavery. You can’t force people to not be racist.” 

Bard responded: “You are 100 percent right. But Vermont does have racism and bigotry.”

Shepeluk interrupted Tarrant to say, “This is not a legal document. This is a statement condemning a practice.”  

Viens then referenced the controversy before the November election. “I was labeled a racist at the drop of a hat for using a wrong word,” he said, adding that he believed he was offering a new idea at the time and since then people have told them they agreed with it. 

“One woman said, ‘If I had a police officer coming to my house, I’d want it to be a white police officer,’” Viens related. “For me, personally I could care less what color they are. They’re police officers. They’re officers of authority, of the law.”

Viens continued: “When you use the word ‘racist,’ that’s in the eyes of the beholder.” Alluding to his own situation, Viens complained that when accusations are made without accusers talking to those they criticize and then others join in, “the outcome is horrible, disgusting,” Viens said. “I wasn’t brought up that way. I’ve always treated people equally across the board. Color isn't an issue for me.”

Tarrant replied. “I’m just concerned about this. This is like such a hot topic right now. It’s getting rehashed and rehashed and rehashed. I’m not a racist. Why am I considered a racist because I don’t agree with something that maybe a Black person says even? Do you know what I mean? It’s just getting crazy” she said. “Like why is it so important for the select board to announce this?” 

Board member Nat Fish spoke for the first time in the discussion and compared the measure to a company’s mission statement. “I have no problem standing behind this statement from the Waterbury Anti-Racism Coalition,” he said. “I’ve got no problem saying to anybody that I agree with that statement.”  

Martin weighed in next. “To me this is basically agreeing with what we bring up our kids with in school – the Golden Rule. Treat others the way that you want to be treated,” she said.  

“Right now we’re just talking about accepting other people just like us – there’s no difference to me. So just agreeing with this is just respecting other people. That’s how I see it.”  

Shepeluk shared the statement on his video screen once again for attendees and the board to read. No one else from the public commented.

Viens then said he “didn’t have any issues with” the statement. “I don’t want it to be used as a beating stick like what happened to me,” he said. 

Tarrant interjected again as she continued in the board’s discussion: “Exactly. I agree. And if you look at somebody the wrong way they’re going to consider you a racist or something.”

Bard then noted that the anti-racism activists “are quick to sometimes be very politically correct about different issues,” but he didn’t consider this such a situation. “I’m pretty comfortable with this statement that we think people should be treated equal,” he said. “I don’t see any harm in this at all.”

As the discussion wound down, Bard briefly revisited the November incident making a comparison with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. by rioters angry with the result of the presidential election. 

“To be honest, Chris, I thought how you were treated in that whole thing was reprehensible. It was a lynch mob … not quite as bad as the Capitol, but for our local community, it was a lynch mob,” Bard said.  

In the end, the board wrapped up the discussion with Viens making the motion to adopt the measure. 

It passed unanimously. 

Reached Tuesday morning, Maroni Minter said he was disappointed that the board met on the MLK holiday. Nonetheless, he said he was “happy and very proud” that the board adopted the statement of inclusion that members of the anti-racism coalition first suggested last June. Its adoption is a testament to the group’s work, Minter said, thanking those who encouraged the board to act. 

“It is worth celebrating that Waterbury has now joined the many towns across the state that condemn racism and promote inclusion,” Minter said. “I want to thank the select board for their leadership and for doing the right thing and I look forward to continuing working with them to make Waterbury a place where all people belong.”

Orcamedia.net community TV records Waterbury Select Board and other municipal meetings.