The first few questions are about the recommendations of the environmental experts (LEC) who studied Kent’s Point and made recommendations to the Town:

(1) Especially given the emphasis on safety and potential municipal liability in the various efforts to regulate public lands since 2018, and given the recommendation by LEC (page 20 of their environmental assessment), that we eliminate tripping hazards at Kent’s Point, why is the area still full of them, and why are there no warnings about them even though parents are walking there with babies strapped to their chests?

(2) LEC also pointed to scouring erosion from storm runoff as a major source of environmental damage at Kent’s, and recommended water diversion (on page 19). Why, almost a year and a half after LEC’s report, have so few efforts been made in this direction? Also, given the photographic evidence, will you admit that neglect of scouring erosion by the Town is the greatest source of ecological damage at Kent’s Point? In addition, since limiting foot traffic will not undo existing soil compaction, what specific problem are parking stickers going to solve, and specifically how will the improvement happen? Further, what do you make of the fact that despite being implored to do so by multiple witnesses, the environmental expert declined to recommend access restrictions? 

(3) In a similar vein, in spite of recommendations for educational signage by LEC (on page 19), and reference in written public comments (page 142 of linked document) to studies showing the positive impact of educational signage in ecologically sensitive areas, there is nothing at the entrance to Kent’s Point alerting visitors that the area is sensitive and that special care is required and expected. What do we have to lose by making this simple effort to educate visitors?

 

(4) The action plan that was released by conservation officials soon after the LEC report was presented obviously doesn’t overlap much at all with the recommendations made by LEC, and yet it includes in the introduction the false, curious, and perhaps legally problematic phrase, “Based on the Kents Point Environmental Assessment by LEC.” Given that you were involved with the Kent’s Point working group, did you have anything to do with adding that language, and can you explain why it was added?

The next few questions cover a wider timespan, and pick up on an element in the previous question, which is the use of town employees and volunteers to carry out the policy of the Select Board, potentially to the detriment of those individuals:

(5) As I and many dog owners remember it, during a challenge to 2019 closure of Wildflower Beach to dogs, you indicated publicly that you had recommended the closure because of concerns – communicated to you by Natural Resources personnel – that dogs were causing erosion there. However, this prompted a clarification from a Natural Resources employee that his concerns had been strictly limited to vehicular traffic on the causeway. A few months earlier, you were on record in the local newspapers that you wanted dogs restricted to a fenced-in dog park near the wastewater treatment plant for public safety reasons, and in face to face conversation with me, you communicated concern (understandable but legally unfounded, in my professional opinion) about the town being liable for a future dog bite. Why this shift to an erosion narrative, and why involve a town employee in your story, rather than just advocating directly for what you believe?

 

(6) In 2019, in response to my suggestion that affected parties meet and resolve their problems like adults, you suddenly proposed a Task Force to review dog restraint policy in Orleans. When choosing members, the Select Board skipped over an attorney and professional mediator, who I believe would have made the ideal chair. Instead, they chose someone with experience establishing a dog park in the Boston suburbs, who was then aggressively championed as chair by a task force member who had led the charge to close off Wildflower to dogs. When dog owners resisted being pushed to recommend a leash law and a dog park paid for by a contribution from the Stanton Foundation, and explored other solutions more specifically targeted to "problem dogs" and their owners, you were heard on live camera saying after a Select Board meeting that we should be disbanded because we had an “agenda.” At the time, you were the Select Board liaison to the task force, although you showed up to our meetings only when the Wildflower closure petitioner wasn’t in attendance. Looking back, how do you evaluate your role in that sequence of events? What would you say to the assessment that you essentially duped us into doing all kinds of work in which you had no interest if it didn’t give you a recommendation to do what you wanted to do in the first place?

(7) Back in December of 2021, the Chief of Police appeared before the Select Board and announced his recommendation that the town adopt a leash law. This was inconsistent with his prior testimony before the Animal Regulation Task Force that the role of the police department is to enforce policy, not make it, and with his statement to me personally that he considered enforcement of such laws inimical to his philosophy of policing. After I objected to his announcement in letters to both the Select Board and the Chief, the planned effort to bring a leash law to Town Meeting was abandoned (maybe because of my objection, maybe not). Did you involve the Chief in this political issue against his better judgment, and if so, do you think that was appropriate?

(8) At the August 27, 2025 meeting of the Conservation Commission concerning the parking sticker proposal, I was the most prominent voice in opposition to the way the entire push for stickers had been conducted. Not only was the Chief in attendance, which was a first for hearings on this issue, but rather than just nodding at me as would be normal under the circumstances, he stood up from his chair, walked over to where I was sitting, stood over me, and shook my hand. Was the Chief’s unusual presence at your behest, and if so, did you also instruct him to pay me that friendly visit from law enforcement before the hearing was called to order – perhaps as some “psych” maneuver to throw me off my game? If not, why was the Chief even present? Regardless of how you answer that, can you see that these two stories paint a picture of the Chief getting entangled in town politics, and do you think even that perception is healthy for the town and for the department?

 

(9) On March 5, 2024, before any supposed fact-finding had begun, a ConsCom member made an impassioned accusation that dogs were “ruining our public lands,” especially by causing erosion of the banks. This echoed themes you brought up in 2019, both privately with me and in at least one Select Board meeting, and which were echoed publicly by Mr. Galligan in December of 2021. In August of 2025, however, after I had published photographic evidence of the true cause of erosion, i.e., runoff, the petitioner I refer to as Witness #6 stated publicly that “no one is saying dogs cause erosion,” and that same ConsCom member shook her head back and forth to reinforce that negative. Looking back on all that, do you think it’s appropriate for Town officials to express factual conclusions at the beginning of factual investigations, and are you willing to endorse the recommendations for public hearings listed as part of Boris’ platform on the orleanswatchdog.org website?

 

(10) In October of 2025, I presented the ConsCom with a petition from dog owners requesting a suspension of the proceeding until after the Town had taken obvious remedial measures such as diversion of runoff and educational signage. I also indicated that I thought the petition of the Keziah’s Lane residents should be denied because the primary incidents presented as proof of safety issues didn't meet the "more probable than not" standard, for particular specific reasons. My petition was abruptly shot down by the Chair, reading from a piece of paper she was holding, in a way she later admitted publicly violated the Open Meeting Law by cutting off questioning and and deliberation. Did you have anything to do with giving her that paper and instructing her to read from it, perhaps in order to avoid a public discussion of the quality of the evidence? If not, where did that piece of paper come from?
 

The next few questions are about yours and the Town’s relationship with dog owners:

(11) In early 2019, the Select Board agenda included an item about imposing dog restrictions at an address on Willie Atwood Road. I and other dog owners saw it and assumed that it was about some landowner complaining about dogs on his or her property. Only after the restrictions were imposed did we realize that the address referred to Wildflower Beach. In defense of my Open Meeting Law complaint about that, the Town Administrator Mr. Kelly defended the notice as “technically accurate,” which is utterly the wrong standard. A notice under the Open Meeting Law has to be reasonably understandable to the average person without their having to do any research. Otherwise, it promotes government in the shadows. At a subsequent meeting where the Wildflower beach closure was relaxed to allow dogs during certain hours, we were given an opportunity to speak before the possibility of hours was mentioned, but were not permitted to speak about what hours might be appropriate, or about the alternative of making dog access untethered to the time of day, but restricted to flats only. In light of all this, do you see where town officials such as yourself and Mr. Kelly might have some responsibility for hostility between dog owners and town government?
 

(12) At the March 2024 meeting where we heard about dogs destroying our public lands, the same ConsCom member prefaced her remarks with, “I know that there will be immediate screaming and yelling, and probably a bombing of my house at night.” (March 5, 2024 meeting video at 2:09:20.) This echoed feedback we got back in 2019, when we were chided by some citizens for having spontaneously grumbled at you in unison during a Select Board meeting about Wildflower, the implication being that somehow our intention had been to threaten or intimidate you. It seems as though perhaps you’ve formed this impression of us as dangerous, and then seeded that impression into various corners of town government and town society. Are you willing to concede the reality that all we did at that meeting was express displeasure at your position, and especially your political methods, and that any fear of violence which arose in you is psychologically “your stuff?” Further, are you willing to concede it’s inappropriate for us to have to testify before a town commission when we’ve essentially been called crazy terrorists, with no kind of corrective action by the Chair?

 

(13) A document on the town website states that at Kent’s, "Infants ... have been jumped on by pets.” However, the only evidence of that ever presented referred to a single incident, and when I questioned the witness about it, he claimed an inability to recall one single detail about any aspect of the event. When I brought my text conversation with the witness up before the ConsCom, the open meeting law violation referred to in question 10 occurred. Then, in August of 2025, the ConsCom chair permitted a witness to face me, in violation of the announced protocol, and try to chide me for being “personal” for bringing it up. Given the substantial reason for doubting this evidence, how appropriate was it for ConsCom to base their action on the petition instead of following my suggestion to deny the petition and act independently, and how appropriate is it for that unsubstantiated accusation to be published on the town website? More generally, how do you think reliance on juicy and divisive anecdotes – as opposed to police reports, for example – squares with the expressed commitment of town government to make decisions which are data-driven?

 

(14) Everyone who has been paying attention knows that if you and your political allies had imposed a summer sticker requirement at Kent’s in 2024, no one would have made a fuss and we wouldn't be talking about it today. Instead, we have this big mess because you  decided to go for the extreme and unprecedented measure of year-round stickers. For one thing, this raised the specter of out of town dog owners boycotting Orleans businesses in retaliation. It also raised questions as to whether the measure would be legal, which in my professional judgment it is not. And furthermore, the measure would have meant the partial destruction of our dog-walking community, in a town where many people feel isolated and lack opportunities to socialize. So it was predictable that the measure might attract some scrutiny. And then when everything about your process seemed fake, as testified to, for example, by the fact that members of the ConsCom never asked any of the witnesses any questions, I think you left town government open to a significant loss of credibility and prestige for no discernible advantage.

As you contemplate all of those unintended consequences, what, if anything, do you think needs to be changed about the way governance happens in our town? And how will you personally modify your approach to governance to help bring about those changes?