The following is the opinion of the author only.

Most of us are aware that over the past few years, meetings of the Board of Trustees (BOT) have become rather uncomfortable events. During the three minutes allocated for members of the public to address their concerns to the BOT, a scant few strong-willed individuals have commandeered the proceeding by loudly repudiating everything this Town’s government does. Current Trustees are accused of committing vile sins that were really the rational actions of prior Trustees. To loud cries of “Shame on you!” The Trustees sit astounded and confused as the irate abuser, having made no rational argument to support the reprimand, sirens on. Individual office-holders are slandered to their faces with glaring falsehoods and, with very few exceptions, the government officials have sat mute (as is tradition) while their character and legitimacy are wrongly defamed.

Standing mute is based upon a view that seems reasonable at first glance: If the Trustees were to respond, differences of opinion may lead to uncivilized behavior. The idea was to protect citizens from the Board, not to protect the Board from citizens.

Over the past few years, some individuals have all but shut down citizen participation in government with behavior that is offensive to all reasonable people. I recall three years ago when the occasional BOT meeting could be packed with attendees eager to address some controversial issue, and now there are only a few ranting militants, dominating the meeting as though their opinions were that of all citizens, and leaving the BOT only to guess at what the Town residents actually believe.

The rants are constructed from a faulty understanding of past events, laws and norms; from mischaracterizations of innocent eccentricities and human foibles; and, from outright falsehoods. This semi-monthly verbal bombardment has leached interest in government from Nederland residents resulting in a small candidate pool and fewer choices for voters. It has also fostered a greater distribution of malicious rumors as people rely on hearsay as opposed to actually witnessing the now unpleasant proceedings of their government in session.

This noble goal of not responding to falsehoods has inadvertently led to the spread of falsehoods, as those who have business with the BOT hear the wretched screeds and, hearing no refutation, assume that the statements must be true. The silence leaves the lie to echo unhindered from the walls, to find purchase in the mind of the casual listener, to live its nefarious purpose in the innocent citizen.

There is another side-effect to this policy. When people speak to the BOT and receive no response, there is the impression that no one heard the message. The BOT listens carefully but has imposed a prohibition on responding. There is also the problem of the gregarious resident who speaks and then asks, “Are there any questions?” This is then followed by questions and answers and the time-keeper and the Board may become confused as to how the questions should be applied to the three minutes allowed for simply speaking.

In the May 5 BOT meeting, a new experiment was initiated. After each speaker’s allotted three minutes, the BOT was invited to ask questions of the speaker. In the event of a question, an additional three minutes were allotted and there was a pleasant and informative dialogue. In one case, a suggestion of an expanded set of topics for our upcoming special election led to a discussion of specific topics to be considered. Not all speakers were questioned; but, many were and many interesting suggestions were expanded through the optional three minutes of questions.

There was one exception. One of the aforementioned strong-willed individuals made specific allegations against various members of the Town government, claiming to have proof of serious malfeasance. The clarifying questions became a bit heated and yet, at the end of the questions, the accuser revealed the essential response. “The proof” for said malfeasance was claimed to be a private recording which the accuser had not entered into evidence.

The clarifying questions actually clarified at every opportunity.

If the lie is not confronted, it will become a dangerous rumor. When divisions in a community are driven by true and honest disagreements, discussion and review may resolve that problem. When divisions are driven by lies, no discussion will serve.

We often hear that a statement is “irrefutable.” This term was coined by Karl Popper, in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery to refer to an argument based upon lies or completely irrational claims. The argument is irrefutable because reason is helpless against sheer balderdash. What is irrefutable is not true, it is mere noise. It is not even wrong. This noise, when shouted loudly enough through enough channels, may become the illusion of truth as we have seen at QAnon and MAGA rallies. The lies must be refuted immediately. They must be killed as infants. They must be questioned and when the speaker reaches the limit of their explanatory depth, the lack of proof must be confronted and exposed.

An ignored lie will fester and rot into the soil from which cults arise. The lie must not stand. An ignored lie will be digested by an undisciplined creative who will cough up a believable corruption. The lie must not stand. An ignored lie will live in the twisted inner world of the weak-minded sycophant who will repeat it like a zealot to all who will hear. It will spread like a virus.

We must all serve this purpose. We must dedicate ourselves to nurturing the truth.

The lie must not stand.