Governance in Question: Board of Health Chair’s Unilateral Actions Stir Public Outcry
The Crisis of Confidence
Brookfield’s Board of Health, led by Chairperson Ms. Maureen Lepak, is facing a rising tide of public frustration and internal discord. The origin of this crisis traces back to September 13, 2023, when Ms. Lepak unilaterally presented a six-page proposal that not only lacked transparency but also seemed to disregard the very essence of democratic governance. Board members, including Vice Chair Christina Perella and Mr. Kelleher, were given no prior notice and were effectively silenced when they sought clarification.
A Disturbing Prelude: The First Meeting Sets the Tone
Perhaps the most telling incident occurred at the very outset, during the board meeting on September 13, 2023. Here, Ms. Lepak unveiled her six-page proposal and immediately sought a motion for a hearing, thereby bypassing any form of discussion or scrutiny. When board member Mr. Kelleher attempted to ask questions, he was unceremoniously interrupted by Ms. Lepak, who declared that questions could be asked at the hearing. The implication was as troubling as it was clear: board members had to blindly agree to a hearing if they wanted the “privilege” of asking questions about a document they had not been given time to review.
Ironically, when the hearing finally came to pass, Ms. Lepak unilaterally revoked that privilege, forbidding board members from asking questions at all. This about-face not only undermined the already fragile trust within the board but also set a concerning precedent for the suppression of dialog and transparency. “We were told by Ms. Lepak that we would be allowed to ask questions if we allowed her proposal for a hearing. She robbed us of that” said member Christopher Kelleher
Christina Peralla, the vice chair, voiced her concerns in a tone that many found striking. “I want to ask some questions,” she said softly yet sincerely, capturing the general sentiment that the board’s ability to fulfill its role was being hindered. This was a tone that would resonate through subsequent meetings and hearings, where, as it turned out, board members were still not permitted to ask questions, contrary to what had been promised.
Controversial Proposal, Controversial Process
The proposal introduced by Ms. Lepak has caused uproar for multiple reasons, not least because of its vagueness and the unilateral manner in which it was presented. Crafted without consulting other board members or providing them time for review, the proposal is rife with ambiguities that leave residents guessing. For instance, the regulations state that painting farm equipment, owning pigs, or moving earth would be considered violations, but offer no further clarification. This lack of detail keeps everyone in the dark, breeding uncertainty and fear.
Additionally alarming is the proposal’s provision that would allow the Board of Health to enter private property, an invasive measure that raises serious privacy concerns. While Ms. Lepak has claimed that farmers would be excluded from this provision, the language in the regulation suggests otherwise, outlining the steps farmers must take to appeal a violation.
The potential consequences of the proposal are severe: residents could face fines of up to $1,000 per day and even criminal charges, transforming ordinary Brookfield residents into de facto criminals. All these details make the lack of board consultation and public input all the more egregious. An initial hearing scheduled for September 27 was canceled due to room capacity issues, leaving residents feeling further marginalized and unheard.
A Pattern of Unilateral Decision-Making
The alarm bells didn’t stop ringing there. Ms. Lepak has shifted meeting venues and times without notice, catching other board members off guard. “She keeps us guessing,” says board member Christopher Kelleher, citing a particular instance when a meeting was moved from Town Hall to the police station without any prior notification. Mr. Kelleher said “She changed one of our meetings to a Tuesday without any notice. I almost missed the meeting.” The capricious nature of these changes extends beyond simple scheduling issues. Mr. Kelleher adds, “If she’s not available, she cancels the entire meeting. Christina Predella the Vice Chair and I make a quorum; legally, we could hold a meeting without her. But Ms. Lepak would never allow it.” The lack of communication and arbitrary changes not only undermine trust among board members but also obstruct public participation—a foundational element of democratic governance. Residents who aim to attend these public meetings are often left confused and frustrated, questioning the board’s transparency and accountability.
Sudden Cancellation Adds to Public Confusion
In a move that stirred further disarray, Ms. Lepak canceled the Board of Health’s regular meeting that had been scheduled for 6 PM on the same day as the public hearing. It is common practice for boards to hold hearings the same night as their regular meetings, typically beginning the hearing an hour after the meeting starts. Ms. Lepak’s last-minute cancellation led to confusion, with many residents mistakenly believing that the public hearing had also been canceled.
Sarah Campbell, the clerk for all boards, reported receiving numerous phone calls from concerned citizens inquiring about the supposed cancellation of the hearing. This confusion could potentially explain the unusually low turnout at the hearing, where only about 50 people were in attendance.
When asked about the meeting’s cancellation, Vice Chair Christina Perella said, “I have no idea; I wasn’t told anything.” Board member Christopher Kelleher echoed these sentiments: “Look, I’m not told anything. I mean, anything. Ms. Lepak keeps me in the dark. “
Christopher Kelleher said “When it comes to transparency and the rule of law, I have to say the Board of Health is the most troubling of all the boards I serve on in Brookfield. I’m on three boards and attend other meetings as well, and none is run with such an autocratic approach. I’m left completely in the dark, which is both undemocratic and against the spirit of public service.”
Chaotic Hearing Adds Fuel to the Fire
By October 27, tensions had escalated to a breaking point. The hearing that day was marred by Ms. Lepak’s overt monopolization of time, sidelining other board members and eating into the public’s allotted speaking period with what attendees have termed “fluff.” Community members found themselves robbed of their time and, therefore, their voice.
A particularly glaring example came when a community member directed a statement and a question solely to Mr. Kelleher. According to the rules—rules set by Ms. Lepak herself—each member of the public was allowed just two minutes to speak. Mr. Kelleher swiftly and directly answered the question, adhering to the guidelines. However, immediately afterward, Ms. Lepak broke her own rules by interjecting without being addressed and began speaking. She continued to speak until the community member’s two-minute window had completely elapsed. In a clear violation of her own regulations, Ms. Lepak usurped this individual’s remaining time, leaving attendees to question her commitment to the very rules she had set. This incident has left many feeling that Ms. Lepak acts according to her own whims, with a disregard for established procedures, at the expense of community engagement.
The Last Straw: A Challenge to Rule-Keeping
Even with a town moderator in place to oversee the hearing, Ms. Lepak seemed unable—or unwilling—to adhere to her own rules. In a moment that shocked attendees, Ms. Lepak attempted to engage in debate with a member of the public, a clear violation of the hearing guidelines she herself had established. When the town moderator intervened, reminding her of the rules, Ms. Lepak audaciously responded, “No, I want to speak.” It took the moderator’s stern loud tone of authority to finally curtail Ms. Lepak’s bending of the rules she herself had set. This raises significant concerns about her willingness to adhere to guidelines—when she won’t even follow her own rules, how can the public trust her to enforce others? Post-meeting, Ms. Lepak was overheard criticizing the moderator, illustrating her dissatisfaction with being held accountable.
Questioning the Common Sense Of Brookfield Residents
In a written communication Ms. Lepak unambiguously suggested that brookfield residents lack common sense in some instances, arguing that new common sense policies and “controls” are required to address the issue. This written statement eliminates any ambiguity, clearly revealing her viewpoint on the community members she is supposed to represent. The term “controls” in her written comments has especially alarmed residents, underling an approach to governance that many see as authoritarian.
Contradictions on Piggeries Raise Concerns About Unilateral Decisions
Ms. Lepak’s public statements about the proposal have been rife with inconsistencies, throwing residents into a state of confusion. For instance, despite previously writing that a person who owns a pet pig on Central Street may be considered running a piggery-a term she has used to describe a factory farm-Ms Lepak informed a community member at a public hearing that they could own an unlimited number of pigs if their property was classified as a farm. This implies that Ms. Lepak is willing to permit potentially massive pig farming operations in the town, contravening the very issue she claims the proposal is designed to prevent.
Adding to these inconsistencies is the distributing fact that Ms. Lepak seems to be making these decisions unilaterally, consulting neither with other board members nor the community at large. The manner in which she has already determined the trajectory of the vague and far-reaching proposal has increasingly alarmed citizens and board members alike.
The Unanswered Question
Is this the sort of governance Brookfield residents deserve? The growing unrest suggests that the community’s patience is wearing thin, and the credibility of the Board of Health under Ms. Lepak’s leadership is increasingly under scrutiny. There are mounting calls for a return to transparency, fairness, and above all, respect for the democratic process.