Community Events – Brookfield Examiner

JOHN “DAVE” HOLDCRAFT CONVICTED OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION AFTER DAYLONG JURY TRIAL

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 21:52:46 +0000

JOHN “DAVE” HOLDCRAFT CONVICTED OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION AFTER DAYLONG JURY TRIAL

EAST BROOKFIELD — A jury found John D. Holdcraft guilty Monday, Sept. 21, 2026, of felony witness intimidation following a daylong trial involving months of voicemails, a harassment prevention proceeding and a Feb. 20, 2025 encounter between Holdcraft and former Brookfield Select Board member Bradford Kadelski at Town Hall.

By Christopher Kelleher

September 21, 2026 6:00 P.M.

Holdcraft entered East Brookfield District Court Monday facing two criminal charges: misdemeanor criminal harassment and felony intimidation of a witness.

Only one of those charges ultimately reached the jury.

After the prosecution rested its case, Holdcraft’s attorney moved for a required finding of not guilty on the criminal harassment charge, arguing that the Commonwealth had presented insufficient evidence to sustain it.

The judge allowed the motion.

The misdemeanor criminal harassment charge was therefore removed from the case before jury deliberations, leaving jurors to decide only whether the Commonwealth had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Holdcraft committed witness intimidation.

After hearing testimony and arguments during a trial that lasted most of the day, the jury returned its verdict:

Guilty.

Holdcraft, 71, was subsequently sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to stay away from Kadelski.

THE CHARGE THAT WENT TO THE JURY

Before deliberations, the judge instructed jurors on the law they were required to apply.

Under Massachusetts law, witness intimidation does not require physical violence.

The judge instructed jurors that the Commonwealth was required to prove the elements of witness intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt, including prohibited conduct directed toward a person protected under the witness-intimidation statute and the required intent — or reckless disregard — to interfere with a proceeding or punish or retaliate against someone for participating in one.

The charge centered on what happened after Kadelski went to East Brookfield District Court on Feb. 20, 2025, seeking a harassment prevention order against Holdcraft.

Prosecutors presented two pieces of video evidence showing Holdcraft at Brookfield Town Hall later that day.

The videos showed Holdcraft pacing, entering and leaving the building and, once Kadelski arrived, following him into the banquet room.

Kadelski testified that Holdcraft called him a “pussy” for going to court seeking the harassment order.

Holdcraft denied knowing at that time that Kadelski had sought the order.

MONTHS OF VOICEMAILS

The prosecution did not present the Feb. 20 encounter in isolation.

Jurors heard a series of voicemails Holdcraft left for Kadelski stretching from September 2024 through February 2025.

The calls occurred repeatedly, sometimes only days apart.

Among the dates presented during the trial were Sept. 9, Sept. 12, Sept. 17, Sept. 23 and Oct. 3, followed by additional calls in February 2025.

In one recording played for jurors, Holdcraft told Kadelski that he had “big surprises” in store for him.

The relationship between the two men had also become increasingly hostile in public.

Two days before Kadelski sought the harassment prevention order, Holdcraft appeared at the Feb. 18 Select Board meeting with a pair of women’s underwear bearing a brown stain, which he presented to Kadelski.

Holdcraft had repeatedly used references to soiled women’s underwear when criticizing Kadelski.

Testifying in his own defense Monday, Holdcraft explained that the references were intended to suggest Kadelski was acting like a girl who could not make decisions.

The prosecutor challenged that explanation on cross-examination, asking whether Holdcraft was suggesting that women could not make decisions.

Holdcraft said no, explaining instead that he meant Kadelski was acting like a “little girl” who could not make decisions.

HOLDCRAFT POINTS TO SEWER DISPUTE

Holdcraft offered jurors another explanation for why he had repeatedly attempted to reach Kadelski.

He testified that the dispute concerned a possible sewer connection between Brookfield and North Brookfield that Holdcraft believed could financially affect property he owned along the proposed route.

According to Holdcraft, he went to Town Hall on Feb. 20 because Kadelski would not return his calls and he wanted to discuss the sewer issue.

The prosecutor challenged that explanation on cross-examination, asking Holdcraft whether any of the voicemails played for the jury mentioned the sewer proposal.

Holdcraft acknowledged that they did not.

DID HOLDCRAFT KNOW ABOUT THE COURT PROCEEDING?

Another significant dispute involved what Holdcraft knew on Feb. 20.

Holdcraft testified that he did not know Kadelski had gone to court that morning seeking a harassment prevention order against him.

The prosecution questioned Holdcraft about a Brookfield police officer telling him that paperwork was waiting for him at the Police Department.

Holdcraft testified that he was merely told there was paperwork to pick up. He said receiving paperwork at the Police Department was not unusual for him and maintained that nobody told him it concerned Kadelski’s harassment prevention proceeding.

Holdcraft testified that he was ultimately served on March 2 — one day before the scheduled March 3 two-party hearing.

His position was therefore that when he encountered Kadelski at Town Hall on Feb. 20, he did not know that Kadelski had initiated the court proceeding.

The prosecution asked the jury to draw a different conclusion from the evidence and circumstances surrounding the encounter.

COMPETING ACCOUNTS

Credibility became a central theme of closing arguments.

Kadelski acknowledged during his testimony that approximately a year and a half had passed and that he could not remember every exact word used during the Feb. 20 encounter.

The defense seized on that uncertainty.

Holdcraft, defense counsel argued, had demonstrated a much clearer recollection of events and was able to answer questions about what occurred. The defense asked jurors to consider that difference when deciding whose account deserved greater weight.

The prosecutor reminded jurors that the decision belonged exclusively to them.

They were the fact finders.

It was their responsibility to evaluate the testimony, consider the videos and voicemails, weigh the competing explanations and determine the credibility of the witnesses.

The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict on the witness-intimidation charge.

CHAFFEE TESTIFIES FOR THE DEFENSE

Current Brookfield Select Board member Richard Chaffee testified for the defense after being summoned to appear as a witness.

Chaffee testified about the Feb. 20 Town Hall encounter and said Kadelski appeared nervous. He told jurors that he positioned himself between Holdcraft and Kadelski and ultimately escorted Kadelski from the building while Holdcraft directed derogatory remarks toward him.

Chaffee’s testimony provided jurors with an account of the encounter from someone other than Holdcraft and Kadelski.

SENTENCING

Following the guilty verdict, the prosecution asked the court to impose six months of incarceration followed by one year of probation.

Defense counsel urged the judge not to incarcerate Holdcraft.

The defense pointed to Holdcraft’s age — 71 — health concerns and animals that depend upon him for their care. Counsel asked for probation and suggested mental-health services.

The judge ultimately sentenced Holdcraft to one year of probation, including an order that he stay away from Kadelski and receive mental-health services if necessary .

The court did not impose the six months of incarceration sought by the prosecution.

The sentence followed a daylong trial in which jurors heard months of voicemails, watched video from Brookfield Town Hall and heard directly from Kadelski, Holdcraft and Chaffee about the events surrounding the Feb. 20 encounter.

Holdcraft left the courthouse Monday having avoided incarceration, but with a guilty verdict on the felony witness-intimidation charge and one year of probation ahead of him.

WHO RUNS BROOKFIELD?

Christopher Kelleher — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 02:01:52 +0000

WHO RUNS BROOKFIELD?

If you don’t live here, why are you governing the people who do?

EDITORIAL | By Christopher Kelleher
Founder & Editor, The Brookfield Examiner

There is something fundamentally wrong when people can come into Brookfield from another community, exercise the power of an elected Brookfield office, vote on the rules the rest of us must live under — and then drive home to another town when the meeting is over.

Brookfield residents deserve better.

More importantly, Massachusetts law demands better.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 109, when an elected town officer “removes from the town or district in which he holds his office,” that person is deemed to have vacated the office.

Not might have vacated it.

Not should consider resigning.

The statute says the office is deemed vacant.

So why are questions about residency apparently so difficult for Brookfield to confront?

WE LIVE UNDER THEIR VOTES

Think about what an elected municipal official can do.

They can vote on policies.

They can participate in creating regulations.

They can exercise governmental authority.

They can make decisions involving how taxpayer money is spent.

They can participate in decisions that affect property owners, businesses and residents.

They can vote on matters that may ultimately increase the financial burden carried by the people who actually live here.

And those decisions don’t disappear when the meeting ends.

We have to live under them.

Brookfield residents remain here after the votes are cast.

We live with the regulations.

We live with the policies.

We pay the bills.

We pay the taxes.

We deal with the consequences.

So there is something particularly offensive about the possibility of an elected official exercising that power after moving somewhere else.

You shouldn’t get to govern Brookfield from outside Brookfield.

REPRESENTATION ISN’T A TECHNICALITY

Imagine someone moving to California and continuing to cast votes in the Massachusetts Senate.

Absurd?

Of course it is.

The principle doesn’t become less important because Brookfield is a small town.

Representative government starts with an extraordinarily simple proposition:

The people representing a community should actually be members of that community.

Brookfield deserves representatives who live here.

Representatives who drive the same roads.

Representatives whose households live under the consequences of local government.

Representatives who are part of the community whose future they are helping determine.

Residency isn’t bureaucratic trivia.

It’s the foundation of representation.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS?

There is another uncomfortable part of this conversation.

Some people who live outside Brookfield may own no taxable real estate here. Depending upon where their vehicles are principally garaged, their vehicle excise taxes may go elsewhere as well.

Yet an elected official exercising Brookfield authority can participate in decisions involving our money.

Think about that.

Brookfield homeowners receive the tax bills.

Brookfield residents fund municipal government.

Brookfield taxpayers ultimately absorb the financial consequences of town government.

Yet questions can arise about whether someone casting votes affecting those very taxpayers even lives among them anymore.

That should bother every taxpayer in town, regardless of politics.

This isn’t Republican.

It isn’t Democrat.

It isn’t liberal or conservative.

It’s basic representative government.

THEY CAN LEAVE. WE GET THE BILL.

Then there is the cost of controversy.

Municipal decisions have consequences.

Government officials can become involved in disputes. Decisions can produce administrative appeals. Enforcement actions can escalate. Conflicts can become litigation.

And lawsuits aren’t free.

Lawyers aren’t free.

Insurance isn’t free.

Staff time isn’t free.

Public resources aren’t free.

When government conduct helps drag a municipality into expensive conflict, the taxpayers ultimately live with the consequences.

And that makes residency matter even more.

An official who has moved elsewhere can go home to another community.

Brookfield cannot.

We’re still here.

The controversy stays here.

The legal bills stay here.

The administrative burden stays here.

The damaged relationships stay here.

And the taxpayers stay here.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO SERVE?

There is another cost that doesn’t appear on a municipal balance sheet.

Volunteers get exhausted.

Good people walk away.

Residents decide that serving on a town board simply isn’t worth the aggravation.

People who genuinely want to contribute to their community can become casualties of endless political warfare and dysfunction.

And every seat occupied by someone who is no longer legally entitled to occupy it is a seat unavailable to a Brookfield resident who could actually serve.

That is not merely unfair.

It defeats the entire purpose of local government.

MOVING AWAY HAS CONSEQUENCES

Massachusetts law anticipated this problem.

People move.

Circumstances change.

Nobody should be condemned for deciding to leave Brookfield.

But leaving town while holding an elected municipal office has a consequence.

Under Chapter 41, Section 109, an officer who removes from the town or district in which that person holds office is deemed to have vacated the office.

That’s the rule.

If you move away, Brookfield doesn’t move with you.

The office isn’t yours to take along.

It belongs to Brookfield.

AND IF PEOPLE KNOW?

This is where the questions become much more serious.

What happens when other town officials have credible information that an elected official no longer resides in Brookfield?

What does the Town Administrator do?

What does the Select Board do?

What procedures exist to determine residency?

Who verifies eligibility?

How long can someone continue exercising governmental authority after moving away?

And if officials know that a colleague has moved but simply look the other way, why?

Silence doesn’t answer the question.

Neither does friendship.

Neither does politics.

And neither does attacking the resident who had the nerve to ask.

We would be careful about accusing anyone of deliberately “covering up” another person’s residency without evidence establishing exactly that.

But residents have every right to ask whether town officials knew, what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

Those are legitimate questions about government.

DON’T BLAME THE PERSON ASKING

Brookfield has developed an unhealthy habit.

Ask an uncomfortable question and somehow you become the controversy.

Request records.

Question a decision.

Challenge authority.

Ask whether someone followed the law.

Suddenly you’re difficult.

You’re an agitator.

You’re causing trouble.

The message becomes unmistakable:

Mind your own business.

Know your place.

Sit down.

Shut up.

No.

This is our business.

It’s our town.

It’s our government.

It’s our money.

And those are our elected offices.

Residents have every right to ask whether the people exercising the power of those offices are legally entitled to be sitting in them.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE COMPLICATED

Nobody needs a political witch hunt.

Nobody needs rumors.

Nobody needs Facebook speculation.

We need facts.

If questions arise about an elected official’s residency, establish where that official legally resides.

If the official remains a Brookfield resident, say so and put the issue to rest.

If the official has removed from Brookfield, apply the law.

No favorites.

No exceptions.

No selective enforcement.

No looking the other way because the person happens to be politically useful, personally popular or friends with the right people.

One standard. Every official. Every time.

BROOKFIELD SHOULD BE RUN BY BROOKFIELD

This newspaper will continue asking an extraordinarily simple question:

Who runs Brookfield?

Because the answer should be just as simple.

Brookfield residents.

People who live here.

People who are accountable here.

People who share in the consequences of the decisions they make here.

People whose authority comes from the residents of this town and who continue to satisfy the legal requirements of the offices entrusted to them.

Our elected offices are not honorary titles.

They are not personal property.

They are not souvenirs an officeholder gets to keep after leaving town.

They belong to the people of Brookfield.

And if you no longer live in Brookfield, you should not be governing the people who do.

Brookfield deserves representatives who actually represent Brookfield.

And Brookfield residents should never be afraid to demand exactly that.

BREAKING NEWS: BROOKFIELD DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY AFTER UNSANCTIONED GRASS CUTTING

Christopher Kelleher — Wed, 20 May 2026 19:01:07 +0000

BREAKING NEWS: BROOKFIELD DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY AFTER UNSANCTIONED GRASS CUTTING

BROOKFIELD — Chaos erupted Tuesday after local resident Shelby O’Day Hill allegedly attempted to improve the appearance of the Town Common before Memorial Day weekend.

According to totally reliable Facebook sources:

• Chief Blanchard immediately activated the Massachusetts State Police Tactical Lawn Response Unit
• The Governor was placed on standby
• President of the United States reportedly authorized National Guard deployment
• Residents heard military aircraft overhead all afternoon as Air Force pilots monitored the dangerous mowing operation
• FEMA officials were allegedly seen measuring grass height near the gazebo

Officials say Shelby was indicted by a Grand Jury of Karens on multiple charges including:

Felony Beautification
Possession of a Weapon of Grass Reduction
Intent to Volunteer Without Proper Authorization
Reckless Operation of Community Spirit

Witnesses describe the scene as “absolutely horrifying.”

“One minute the grass was tall,” said one resident. “The next minute… it looked maintained.”

Meanwhile, sources report Brookfield’s remaining Highway Department employee has been placed into federal witness protection after being asked if he needed help before Memorial Day.

The FBI has not confirmed reports that Shelby’s lawn mower has been added to the most wanted list.

At press time, authorities warned residents:
“If you see suspicious acts of volunteerism, kindness, or civic pride, immediately contact Town Hall.”

(SATIRE — because apparently we now need to clarify that.)

Brookfield Residents Encouraged to Participate in Annual Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive Saturday

Christopher Kelleher — Fri, 08 May 2026 22:24:38 +0000

Brookfield Residents Encouraged to Participate in Annual Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive Saturday

By Christopher Kelleher

BROOKFIELD — Residents across Brookfield will have an opportunity tomorrow to help local families in need during the annual Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive.

The Brookfield Examiner spoke with staff at the Brookfield Post Office, who confirmed that both residents with P.O. Boxes or home mailboxes may drop off non-perishable food donations directly at the post office on Saturday during operating hours.

The Brookfield Post Office will be open tomorrow from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Community members are encouraged to donate items such as canned vegetables, soup, pasta, rice, peanut butter, cereal, and other shelf-stable foods. Donations collected through the drive help support local food pantries and families facing food insecurity.

The annual food drive, organized by the National Association of Letter Carriers, is one of the country’s largest single-day food collection efforts and takes place in communities nationwide each year.

Residents planning to participate may bring donations during the morning hours while the post office is open or leave them near their mailbox tomorrow May 9th 2026

UPDATE: Post Road Trading approved hours before scheduled Board of Health meeting

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 04 May 2026 14:20:35 +0000

UPDATE: Post Road Trading approved hours before scheduled Board of Health review

By Christopher Kelleher

BROOKFIELD — After a months-long permitting process involving shifting requirements, multiple applications, and repeated requests for clarification, a Brookfield business has been approved to sell prepackaged food—with the approval issued just hours before a scheduled public meeting on the matter.

Bonnie Toomey, owner of Post Road Trading, had initially sought to expand her shop’s offerings by selling baked goods and coffee. According to Toomey, that plan required her to complete a food safety certification course and apply for permitting through the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition, which provides public health services for Brookfield.

Only after completing those steps, she said, was she informed that her proposed operation would require additional infrastructure—including a three-compartment sink and dedicated handwashing station—requirements she said were not feasible in her retail space.

She then shifted to a more limited plan: selling only prepackaged, commercially produced items such as sealed jellies and jams. Even that, she said, involved additional requirements, including a detailed plan review application, submission of a floor plan, and questions over whether an allergen permit would be required.

Despite submitting the requested materials and fees, Toomey had not received approval and was scheduled to appear before the Brookfield Board of Health on April 29.

However, according to updated information, the permit for prepackaged food sales was issued by the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition shortly before the meeting, resolving the central issue in advance.

Toomey still attended the meeting and addressed the Board, raising a separate question about whether she could offer coffee using a Keurig-style machine, which she said does not involve plumbing or equipment typically associated with food preparation. Board members said they would review the issue but did not make a determination.

The approval follows a process Toomey described as difficult to navigate, citing inconsistent guidance and delays.

As of publication, the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition did not respond to requests for comment.

Brookfield Man’s Criminal Trial Postponed After Defendant Fails to Appear

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 23:01:54 +0000

Brookfield Man’s Criminal Trial Postponed After Defendant Fails to Appear

A jury trial scheduled Monday in East Brookfield District Court involving Brookfield resident John D. Holdcraft was postponed after the defendant failed to appear, with his attorney informing the court that Holdcraft had been hospitalized that morning.

Charges Filed

Holdcraft is charged with:

Criminal harassment, a misdemeanor under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 43A(a), which court records classify as carrying potential incarceration of more than 100 days; and
Witness intimidation, a felony under Chapter 268, Section 13B, formally listed as intimidation of a witness, juror, police officer, or court official.

The charges stem from allegations involving former Select Board Chair Bradford J. Kadelski.

Courtroom Proceedings

When the case was called, Holdcraft was not present in the courtroom.

His defense attorney informed the court that Holdcraft, described as a 70-year-old man, was experiencing breathing difficulties and had gone to Harrington Hospital earlier that morning.

The judge asked whether documentation could be provided to confirm the hospitalization. Defense counsel stated that he did not have documentation at that time, referencing medical privacy concerns, but indicated that Holdcraft was at the hospital.

Defense counsel also informed the court that a defense witness, Richard Chaffee, was unavailable due to a medical condition described as shingles.

The judge then asked the Commonwealth whether it was prepared to proceed. The Commonwealth responded that it was ready for trial.

The court noted that jurors had already been summoned and were present for the scheduled trial. Approximately 20 jurors had appeared for jury duty and were subsequently dismissed following the delay.

The judge stated that the case would be held for a second call and requested documentation confirming Holdcraft’s hospitalization.

According to court staff, documentation was later provided following the hearing, and the case has been rescheduled for a jury trial on June 17.

After the court indicated the matter would be held for a second call, the prosecutor asked whether witnesses could be excused.

The judge allowed the request.

At that point, several individuals present for the case—including Brookfield Police Chief Michael Blanchard, Kadelski, and other residents—left the courtroom.

Background of the Charges

According to court documents, testimony, and video evidence referenced in the case, the charges arise from a series of interactions between Holdcraft and former Select Board Chair Bradford J. Kadelski.

At an October 2024 Select Board meeting, Holdcraft is alleged to have tossed a pair of women’s underwear toward Kadelski, with the item landing on Kadelski’s desk. The incident was captured on video.

The underwear appeared to have a brown stain. In prior sworn testimony referenced in the matter, Holdcraft acknowledged that the underwear may have come from materials obtained during a property clean-out, which is consistent with his business performing junk removal and clean-out services.

Kadelski has further alleged that Holdcraft engaged in repeated conduct directed toward him, including a late-night phone call in which Holdcraft allegedly asked what color woman’s underwear he was wearing.

According to court filings, Kadelski subsequently sought a harassment prevention order at East Brookfield District Court.

Video from Town Hall referenced in the case shows Holdcraft inside the building prior to a meeting, pacing in the front lobby area, repeatedly entering and exiting the building, and looking out toward the entrance.

The video then shows Kadelski arriving at Town Hall, at which point Holdcraft is seen following him from the front entrance area into the meeting space.

According to testimony cited in court documents, Holdcraft made derogatory remarks toward Kadelski during this interaction, including statements referencing Kadelski’s decision to seek a court order.

These allegations form part of the basis for the witness intimidation charge.

Holdcraft has publicly denied wrongdoing and has stated in prior media interviews that his actions are protected under the First Amendment. The Brookfield Examiner was unable to reach Holdcraft for comment prior to publication.

Procedural History

Court records show the case has been ongoing since February 2025, when a criminal complaint was issued. Holdcraft later entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

In August 2025, a motion by the defense to dismiss the case was denied by the court.

A previously scheduled jury trial in December 2025 was rescheduled at the request of the defendant.

Monday’s trial date was marked in court records as rescheduled due to illness, with a note indicating the defendant was taken to the hospital.

Related Civil Matter and Prior Absences

Holdcraft is also named as a defendant in a separate civil case, Fromm v. Holdcraft, involving allegations of defamation and related claims.

According to filings in that case, Holdcraft previously failed to appear for a scheduled deposition despite a court order compelling his attendance. Court records indicate that motions to compel the deposition were filed and allowed, with the court ordering that Holdcraft appear.

On the morning of that compelled deposition, Holdcraft’s attorney notified opposing counsel that Holdcraft was either at the hospital or on the way to the hospital and would not be able to attend.

According to information provided in that matter, individuals involved in the deposition—including counsel, a stenographer, a videographer, and a notary public—were already present or en route at the time the cancellation was communicated.

Public records indicate that Holdcraft had attended a town meeting the evening prior to that scheduled deposition.

In Monday’s criminal proceeding, Holdcraft was again absent when his case was called for trial, with his attorney stating he had gone to the hospital that morning.

No findings have been made by the court regarding the reasons for Holdcraft’s absences.

What Comes Next

The case is scheduled to return to East Brookfield District Court for jury trial on June 17.

The Commonwealth indicated in court that it was prepared to proceed with trial on Monday.

Brookfield board opens door to remote public participation in meetings

Christopher Kelleher — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 22:25:56 +0000

Brookfield board opens door to remote public participation in meetings

BROOKFIELD — In a move aimed at expanding public access to local government, the Brookfield Select Board voted March 10 to allow town boards and commissions to offer remote participation for the general public.

The decision, approved unanimously by the board members present, Richard Chaffee, was absent, represents, a shift away from limiting remote access to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations and toward broader availability for all residents.

The proposal was brought forward by Steven Karrmann, chair of the Conservation Commission and a member of the Communications Commission, who urged the board to make remote access available beyond ADA-related requests.

Karrmann said expanding access would allow more residents to take part in public meetings regardless of scheduling conflicts, transportation issues or other barriers.

The Select Board’s vote allows individual boards and commissions to offer remote participation at their discretion but does not require it.

Conservation Commission moves quickly

The Conservation Commission has already acted on the change.

Under Karrmann’s leadership, the commission will allow remote public participation at its March 18 meeting, making it one of the first town bodies to implement the new option.

The move comes less than a week after the Select Board’s vote.

Expanding access to local government

Remote participation became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic but has since been scaled back in many communities or limited to specific circumstances, such as ADA accommodations.

Brookfield’s new approach gives local boards the flexibility to reintroduce or expand virtual access more broadly.

Supporters say the change could increase civic participation by making it easier for residents to attend meetings without being physically present.

What comes next

Whether other boards and commissions adopt the option remains to be seen.

However, the Conservation Commission’s early implementation may serve as a model for other town bodies considering similar steps.

The Examiner’s View

Brookfield’s decision to expand remote participation is a practical and overdue step toward improving public access to local government.

The Conservation Commission has already demonstrated how quickly the policy can be put into place. Other boards now have the same opportunity.

The Brookfield Examiner encourages all town boards and commissions to adopt remote participation where feasible, ensuring that more residents can engage in the decisions that affect their community.

Board Of Health Chair’s Actions Raise Concerns

Mark Kelleher — Fri, 03 Nov 2023 20:29:34 +0000

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.

Position Open: Highway Superintendent in the Town of Brookfield

Christopher Kelleher — Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:16:18 +0000

Date: October 12, 2023

Brookfield, MA – The Town of Brookfield, a charming community with a population of 3,450, is seeking a dynamic and experienced individual to fill the position of Highway Superintendent. This full-time role carries a range of responsibilities, including overseeing highway department operations, managing budgets, and maintaining vital infrastructure within the town.

Position Overview:

As the Highway Superintendent, you will be at the helm of the town’s highway department, ensuring the smooth operation and maintenance of essential infrastructure. You’ll work closely with town officials, coordinate projects, and lead a dedicated team of professionals.

Key Responsibilities:

Your role as Highway Superintendent will encompass a variety of tasks, including:

Supervision and Leadership:

– Reporting directly to the Board of Selectmen, the Highway Superintendent will independently manage departmental operations.

– Maintain collaborative relationships with the water department, fire department, and other town departments.

– Supervise full-time, part-time, and seasonal personnel, overseeing duties, performance evaluations, payroll, and more.

Infrastructure Management:

– Plan, direct, and supervise the maintenance and repair of roads, facilities, vehicles, and equipment.

– Provide support for tree maintenance and roadside brush removal to the Tree Warden.

– Oversee snow and ice removal operations.

Budget and Administration:

– Prepare and manage the departmental budget.

– Develop policies, procedures, and departmental plans.

– Monitor project progress, budgets, and costs.

– Work with contractors to ensure contract fulfillment.

Compliance and Safety:

– Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local health and safety regulations.

– Conduct safety training sessions for equipment and vehicle usage.

Community Engagement:

– Represent the department at meetings and public hearings.

– Respond to inquiries and requests from the public, town officials, and other stakeholders.

– Collaborate with grant writers to identify and secure available grants.

Qualifications:

To be successful in this role, you should possess:

Education and Experience:

– Required: High School diploma or G.E.D.

– Preferred: Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering or related field, along with 5-7 years of progressively responsible experience in managing municipal highway systems. Equivalent combinations of education, training, and experience will also be considered.

– Valid Massachusetts Driver’s License and a satisfactory driving record.

– Possession of a valid C.D.L.

– Valid Hoisting License, including endorsements 1C, 1B, 2B, 4B, 4D, 4E, and 4G.

Physical Requirements:

This role involves a variety of physical demands, including indoor and outdoor work in various weather conditions. It requires the ability to access construction sites, operate heavy and light equipment, and lift or move objects weighing 50 pounds or more. Regular interaction with government officials, town employees, third parties, and the public is essential.

Work Location:

The position entails both indoor and outdoor work settings, with administrative work conducted in a typical office environment. Attendance at night meetings and responsiveness to emergencies during evenings, weekends, and holidays may be required.

Schedule:

This is a full-time position with a regular 40-hour workweek, along with additional hours as needed to meet the demands of the role.

The Town of Brookfield is an equal opportunity employer (AA/EOE) and encourages candidates from diverse backgrounds to apply.

If you’re a motivated and experienced professional with a passion for maintaining and enhancing community infrastructure, we invite you to apply for the position of Highway Superintendent. Your leadership and dedication will contribute to the prosperity of Brookfield. Applications will be accepted until November 9, 2023, or until the position is filled, whichever is longer. Submit your letter of interest and resume to townadministrator@brookfieldma.us or mail it to Town Administrator at 6 Central Street, Brookfield, MA 01506. Join us in shaping the future of Brookfield’s infrastructure and community.

Brookfield Community Newspaper Seeks Local Talents: Join Our Writing Team!

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:17:18 +0000

The Brookfield Examiner, your trusted local non-profit newspaper, is calling on residents to contribute to a proud town tradition. As we continue our mission to provide up-to-date, relevant, and engaging news for our beloved community, we’re reaching out for passionate writers to join our dedicated team.

Established with the primary goal of connecting Brookfield residents and highlighting the vibrant happenings in our town, the Brookfield Examiner is more than just a newspaper – it’s a reflection of our community’s spirit. Now, as we strive to expand our coverage and bring a richer array of stories to our readers, we believe that there’s no one better to write about Brookfield than its very own residents.

We’re searching for individuals who have a flair for writing, a passion for community stories, and a desire to give back. Whether you’re a seasoned journalist, a hobbyist writer, a student seeking experience, or someone with a story to tell, we welcome you to be a part of our team.

Being a non-profit, our success is deeply rooted in community involvement. Every story shared, every article written, and every photo captured comes from a place of love and dedication to Brookfield. And while our team has been working tirelessly the inclusion of more local voices will undoubtedly elevate our newspaper’s quality and relevance.

By joining the Brookfield Community Newspaper , not only do writers get a platform to share their voice, but they also become part of a longstanding tradition of community journalism in Brookfield.

If you’re interested in contributing, whether it’s one story or many, please reach out to us. Together, we can ensure that The Brookfield Examiner remains a true reflection of our town’s heart and soul.

For more information or to express your interest, please contact the examiner’s editorial team, chris@brookfieldexaminer.com Let’s come together and make our community newspaper a shining beacon of Brookfield’s spirit.