Editorials – Brookfield Examiner

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.

EDITORIAL: ALL BROOKFIELD RESIDENTS PLACED ON PROBATION FOLLOWING SINGLE COUNT OF DISAGREEMENT

Christopher Kelleher — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:26:13 +0000

EDITORIAL: ALL BROOKFIELD RESIDENTS PLACED ON PROBATION FOLLOWING SINGLE COUNT OF DISAGREEMENT

BROOKFIELD — In what can only be described as a sweeping disciplinary action, the entire population of Brookfield has been placed on indefinite probation following a recent meeting in which one resident engaged in conduct deemed unacceptable: disagreement.

The finding, issued from the chair by Select Board Chair Richard Chaffee, establishes a new standard for civic accountability — one in which the actions of a single individual are sufficient to justify the suspension of participation rights for all.

According to the record, the triggering incident involved “interruptions,” “disrespect,” and behavior that, in the Chair’s view, rose to an intolerable level. No formal charges were filed, no findings issued against a specific individual — but the penalty was nevertheless applied universally.

“Until it can get better,” the Chair explained, public comment would be suspended.

What, precisely, must get better — and how that improvement is to be measured — remains undefined.

The ruling appears to rely heavily on the Chair’s personal experience of the prior meeting.

“I felt like the victim,” he stated.

This declaration now stands as the central evidentiary basis for the town-wide sanction.

Further context was provided, including the Chair’s statement that he has been dealing with a medical condition affecting his right eye, and that he is “not willing to put [himself] through that again.”

From this, a new governing principle emerges: that public participation may be suspended when it becomes personally distressing to those presiding.

Under the terms of the current order, Brookfield residents are to remain silent during meetings until such time as they demonstrate improved conduct — though no formal pathway for redemption has been outlined.

In effect, the town now operates under a collective standard of behavior in which all residents are held accountable for the perceived failings of one.

There is, at present, no timeline for release from this probationary status.

Until further notice, the residents of Brookfield remain under restriction — not for what they have individually done, but for what one among them was said to have done.

They are encouraged to reflect, improve, and, when the time comes, return prepared to meet expectations.

Until then, Brookfield has solved the problem of public disagreement in the most efficient way possible: by eliminating the public.

EDITORIAL: Brookfield’s “orange M&M” problem

Christopher Kelleher — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:23:39 +0000

EDITORIAL: Brookfield’s “orange M&M” problem

BROOKFIELD — There’s a famous story about rock bands and contract riders.

Some major acts would include a strange requirement: backstage, there had to be a bowl of M&Ms — with no orange ones.

It wasn’t about being difficult. It was a test.

If the band walked in and saw orange M&Ms in the bowl, they knew something important: the venue hadn’t carefully followed the contract. And if they missed something that obvious, what else did they miss? Electrical safety? Structural setup? Crowd controls?

The small detail revealed a bigger problem.

Right now, the Town of Brookfield has its own version of orange M&Ms.

The vote that didn’t stick

Years ago, Brookfield voters approved a change at Town Meeting: the “Board of Selectmen” would become the “Select Board.”

Clear. Simple. Voted.

And yet, the town continues to use the old term.

It shows up in official notices.
It’s embedded in town email addresses.
It’s still used in meetings.

That’s the orange M&M in the bowl.

Why this matters

On its face, this might seem minor , just a word.

But that’s exactly the point.

If a straightforward, voter-approved change like this isn’t fully implemented, it raises a bigger question: what else is being overlooked, delayed, or quietly ignored?

Because Town Meeting votes are not symbolic. They are the legislative decisions of the town.

And when those decisions aren’t carried out, it’s not just an oversight — it’s a breakdown in accountability.

A test the town is failing

The name change is easy to verify. Anyone can see it — on a notice, in a meeting, in an email address.

Which is what makes it so important.

It’s a visible indicator of whether the town is following through on what voters decide.

Right now, that indicator is flashing.

An easy fix — and an important one

This isn’t complicated.

Update the language.
Change the email address.
Use the correct title in meetings and documents.

More importantly, show that when Brookfield voters make a decision, it is actually carried out.

Because the Town of Brookfield still has orange M&Ms in its bowl , and that raises a bigger question: what else are they missing?