PLYMOUTH — August 11, 2026 — In a divided 3-2 vote Tuesday evening, the Plymouth Select Board adopted a comprehensive Civil Conduct Policy designed to establish clear behavior standards and formal complaint channels for municipal officials. The decision followed intense debate and friction among board members over potential speech restrictions and enforcement powers, highlighting existing fractures on the board even as proponents argued the policy was critical to restoring decorum to local government.
The Full Story
The adoption of the policy was spurred by contentious behavior at municipal meetings over the past year, including an outburst at the May 2026 Town Meeting and recent confrontations within the Select Board itself. Developed by Select Board Chair Deborah Iaquinto, Select Board Member Bill Keohan, Town Counsel, and a working group of local committee chairs, the policy adapts model language from the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA). Proponents framed it as an essential baseline to give municipal boards guidance, establish consistent complaint handling procedures, and provide mechanisms such as formal public censures.
Town Moderator Steven Triffletti spoke in favor of the measure, noting that while parliamentary manuals like Town Meeting Time govern session procedures, an overarching town policy sets a community standard. Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member Beth Gragg, who chairs the Committee of Precinct Chairs, urged the board during public comment to lead by example, lamenting recent “open hostility and personal disrespect” displayed during open meetings.
However, the policy faced sharp pushback from board members Kevin Canty and David Golden, who voted against the measure. Canty raised procedural alarms, arguing that the policy’s censure mechanism creates opportunities for a “tyranny of the majority” to bully dissenting members. He also warned that allowing complaints without strong safeguards against anonymous filings could weaponize the process.
“The issue of censure as outlined in this policy is essentially an opportunity for tyranny of the majority... If you had a board of five where you had one or two members who were consistently in the minority, they could be targeted by the majority on that board and publicly censured and essentially bullied through the use of this policy.” — Kevin Canty
Tensions escalated when Vice Chair Richard Quintal interrupted Canty to request calling the vote, prompting Canty to cite the interruption as a live example of the board’s underlying decorum issues. Golden argued that the policy suffered from “mission drift” by restating state ethics laws, lacked clear definitions for prohibited conduct, and risked chilling protected speech under the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court precedent Barron v. Kolenda. Despite these objections, the board passed the motion 3-2, with Iaquinto, Keohan, and Quintal voting in favor.
