To the Editor:

Recent Planning Board meetings have been characterized by hostility from some board members toward me as a newly elected Planning Board member. There appears to be no reason other than my gender and my willingness to challenge and improve past board procedures. The hostility has been persistent and unremitting. The resentment began when I first declared my candidacy for the Planning Board. During the campaign some of my campaign signs were misappropriated or mangled. Rather than have the four candidate names for three slots appear in alphabetical order, the ballot had my name in last place. After winning election to the Marion Planning Board on May 16 comments were heard in the polling place after the results were announced: “Oh no, she won. I can’t believe it, poor Ted.”

At Planning Board meetings, I deal with quiet comments as well as louder put-downs. I am the only woman on the Planning Board. The Machiavellian tactics used have a common thread – the need to control me. Former Planning Board member Jay Ryder demonstrates this attitude in his letter to the editor dated Nov. 28. I believe that he appears threatened by women’s accomplishments and the power that women gain with political and leadership roles.

Instead of welcoming the handbook I wrote for the benefit of the future board members, Ryder and other board members chose to malign the time and the effort that I put into the project. Ryder’s exact published words were: “Rather than listen and learn at her new post, like most first timers, she came out of the gates proposing a handbook for members of the Planning Board.” Shame on me!

An orientation or handbook is similar to a compass; it provides direction for new Planning Board members. Would any judicious sailor set out and sail across the ocean without a compass? Do Ryder and several board members think it reasonable for new members to make decisions that could potentially cost taxpayers and the town millions of dollars without equipping them with helpful tools—like a handbook and orientation? It is the lack of a handbook and orientation that prompted me to make the campaign promise to write a handbook/operations manual. I have kept that solemn promise.

“There have been no handbooks for Selectmen or Planning Board members, ever,” Ryder said. Ryder says that he “served on the Marion Planning Board for six years. One year as vice chair and two years as the chairman.” Apparently in those six years, three of them in leadership positions, he never took on the task of suggesting or writing a handbook to help new members transition smoothly onto the board. Is it a mask to this failure that Ryder comes out swinging, to the extent of not just criticism but falsely denigrating and smearing my reputation because I produced a handbook for the Planning Board?

Ryder gets on to the false and defamatory statements regarding me. “On numerous occasions, she has verbally abused Terri Santos, the Planning Board’s dedicated and extremely competent assistant.”

That “report” of fact is false and malicious. Ryder’s long service on the Planning Board will carry a lot of weight, and because of this, people might well trust and believe his unfounded and defamatory accusations. Ryder’s statement is absolutely false; it is an attack from a former town leader who is well aware of the political fallout. The statement is intended to harm my reputation in the community and heap scorn and ridicule upon me. The attack places me at risk of losing my seat on the Planning Board. I call on Mr. Ryder, who claims to have “watched the Planning Board deliberate since May when three new members were elected,” to now accurately document the date and time and the words I spoke that would constitute “verbal abuse” of Santos. He must also define what he means by “verbal abuse.”

I also disagree with Ryder’s assessment of the quality of minutes written by the board assistant. There have been several inaccuracies in how events unfolded during meetings. I was verbally reprimanded (documented on DVD) by other Planning Board members for having the audacity to bring errors by the Planning Board assistant to the board’s attention during review of the minutes, and then faulted for correcting the blatant errors. Because of uncorrected errors, I have had to vote nay on two documents.

Ryder has also said: “She recently wrote a letter to the editor complaining that there were not enough residents on the Master Plan Subcommittee rather than openly discussing the issue with other members of her board.” Here are several issues:

• For someone who has “watched” and presumably listened to the Planning Board deliberate since May, it seems Ryder is misinformed. I have discussed the issue of “not enough residents” several times and asked for transparency concerning the Master Plan Subcommittee. Citizen input is vital for the acceptance and success of a Master Plan. Also, I attended a special meeting on this topic Nov. 20 in the Town House Conference Room.

• Without citizen input, a Master Plan that could cost taxpayers more than $100,000 could sit on a shelf collecting dust. When one is focused on covering up failures and busy shifting blame, it is difficult to step into someone else’s shoes. Being a woman on the Planning Board and speaking out intelligently is like walking on eggshells. One never knows when the shell will crack. What I say has been made fair game for being taken out of context and sent off into the unrecognizable spin zone; male members do not have this problem.

• There are four board members on the Master Plan Subcommittee, two are co-chairs of the Master Plan Subcommittee and the other two are newly elected members to the Planning Board. I asked to be on the Master Plan Subcommittee, but I was told that they “need experienced” board members. So, one of the first individuals appointed to the Subcommittee was a former Planning Board member whom I defeated in the town election, Ted North. He is treated as a de facto Planning Board member. Although I attended several Citizen Planner Training Collaborative workshops in March 2014 that help citizens prepare for the Planning Board job, the other two new members who did not attend were appointed to the Master Plan Subcommittee.

Ryder again: “The last straw was circumventing the Planning Board, once again, to propose a new bylaw. Instead, she submitted the draft to the Selectmen, who in turn referred it back to the Planning Board. She claimed she did not have confidence in the Planning Board to go directly to them in the first place.”

To say that I “did not have confidence in the Planning Board to go directly to them” is a distortion and misinterpretation designed to incite members against me. It is taken out of context. The Sippican Week of Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014 reported, “Marum, who was elected in May said she addressed Selectmen directly because the Planning Board was not receptive to her ideas...After writing the handbook and having it rejected, she said she was reluctant to put the formulaic bylaw before the board,” according to Sippican Week.

My exact words: “If you can’t get something done one way you generally try and find another avenue. If someone is erecting barriers, you find another way to accomplish your task.” This is a far cry from what Ryder wants people to believe, “she did not have confidence in the Planning Board."

Ryder: “The Planning Board is a team of players...Unless she is willing to join the team and put her efforts in the right direction, perhaps she should let a more civic-minded individual take her place on the Planning Board.” There is no way to join a “team” when the players involved are unreceptive to your overtures and cheering for the other guy (Ted North); the individual I defeated. Furthermore, Ryder’s letter shows a direct link to a robust effort to oust me from the board, or failing in that endeavor, turn me into a submissive and subservient Planning Board member without a brain. If I do not comply with Ryder’s or other members’ vision of how a woman should behave —apparently be seen and not heard — then, the plan is to have “a more civic-minded individual take [my] place on the Planning Board.” Some board members have been outright hostile toward me since I defeated Ted North. North is waiting in the wings to reclaim “his” seat on the Planning Board. He sits in the front row at most Planning Board meetings.

Women will not achieve political equality until five critical societal changes have taken place. The following must be understood by the town of Marion and Ryder’s “team.”

First, with women’s advancements into leadership roles comes the need for dealing with the wounded egos of men who previously held the positions. This must be addressed in order to assure men that women can indeed be their political and intellectual equals as agents of power and thought.

Second, men must continue to be educated and persuaded of the broad societal benefits of having women at the helm in spite of the personal losses of power and influence men undergo when they compete with and lose to the feminine gender.

Third, women will not realize political equality until men are no longer threatened by women’s accomplishments and the power that women assume along with their political and leadership roles.

Fourth, women’s successes in being elected and appointed to political positions must no longer be an anomaly to demonstrate equality has been achieved.

Fifth, men and women who adhere to traditional notions of gender roles and places in society must be brought up to speed to accept and celebrate women’s ways of leading through collaboration, compassion, and commitment.

When women achieve the same status as men and receive equal treatment under the law, Marion will experience a true awakening and a more inclusive and equitable society.

Sincerely,

Eileen J. Marum

Marion Planning Board