Former Somerville Planning Board Chair John Bergen (left) consults with lawyer John Hamer during his pre-termination hearing on Tuesday, April 9. (Molly Rains photo)
A crowded hearing in the Somerville Elementary School gymnasium ended in the resignation of now-former planning board Chair John Bergen on the evening of Tuesday, April 9.
Somerville Select Board Chair Chris Johnson said at the hearing that Bergen’s removal was being considered for reasons including “creating a hostile work environment, restricting or threatening to restrict member participation, restricting or threatening to restrict public participation, violating the Freedom of Access Act, and exhibiting bias.”
“I am not happy that this has reached this point in this town. I’m not happy that people have treated each other in ways that necessitate this. But I do know that it’s our duty to not allow a toxic situation that drives volunteers away from certain appointed boards,” Johnson said.
“I will try to help the town in other ways, but I am done with this nonsense,” Bergen said.
Leading up to Bergen’s climactic resignation, the Somerville Select Board and town lawyer Mary Denison presented a collection of email correspondence involving Bergen and testimony about events that transpired behind closed doors during an executive session meeting between the board and Bergen earlier in the year.
Bergen, seated across from the select board, was represented by John Hamer, of Bangor. Bergen said in a phone call on Tuesday, April 2 that he had requested the hearing be held in public rather than in executive session, as is the norm for personnel-related matters on town boards. About 30 audience members gathered in the space to witness the proceedings.
Hamer said shortly after the hearing began that he believed Johnson had a conflict of interest due to a “longstanding dispute” with the planning board chair and the fact that Johnson was a correspondent on some of the emails presented as evidence. He requested that Johnson be recused from the hearing.
Saying that he had encouraged Bergen to join the planning board, Johnson said that the characterization of his and Bergen’s relationship as disputative was subjective. He affirmed that he was confident in his ability to rule objectively on the matter.
The select board then read through a series of emails sent between Bergen, members of the planning board, members of the select board, and members of the public.
In one email sent to fellow planning board members, Bergen describes alleged conflicts between planning board member Diana Olmstead and her neighbors.
Johnson suggested that the amount of detail present in the email suggested that Bergen had targeted and researched Olmstead, alleging that Bergen’s delve into Olmstead’s personal life was part of a pattern of “inappropriate” behavior that had created a hostile work environment on the planning board.
He also pointed to scheduling conflicts that prevented Olmstead from attending some planning board meetings.
Hamer countered that Bergen was within his First Amendment rights to voice concerns or disapproval of the new appointee.
In other emails, Johnson said, “members of the planning board were being denigrated and attacked.” He pointed to one email in which Bergen responded to an email from Olmstead with the line, “this reads as a hysterical attack,” as “evidence of sexism” and bias from Bergen against Olmstead.
The word “hysterical,” Johnson said, originally was used to describe women. The word comes from the Greek “hysterikos,” or “suffering in the womb.”
Bergen defended his word choice, reading aloud a portion of the email he had been responding to from Olmstead, in which she said that Bergen’s words had “horrified” her.
“This is why I used (the word),” Bergen said. “That seems hysterical.”
Also during the proceedings, Bergen and the Somerville Select Board discussed the events of a special meeting between the two parties which was held in executive session on February 7.
Bergen had requested the meeting to discuss concerns about Olmstead and his differences with her, he said at the hearing.
However, accounts from the two parties of what was said in the private session differed. Johnson and the other select board members alleged that Bergen had claimed he would not allow Olmstead or her husband to participate in meetings, while Bergen denied that allegation.
Bergen revealed at the hearing that he had secretly taped the meeting. When asked if he would provide a copy of the recording, Hamer said that the pair “would think about it.”
After more than two hours of discussion, Denison recommended that the town wrap up its presentation of their position.
When asked by Denison if he had evidence or testimony to present, Hamer initially said no, calling the hearing “a ridiculous exercise.”
“There’s no point,” he said, alleging the select board members had already made up their minds. “The issue has been resolved. I don’t see that there’s any grounds for removing Mr. Bergen, and I respectfully request that the board dismiss this complaint against him.”
Hamer then requested a two-minute recess, during which he and Bergen stepped outside. When they returned, Bergen addressed the board and the audience.
Bergen said that he had joined the planning board with the goal of “saving taxpayer dollars” by “convincing the town it needed a local pit creating gravel for our roads.”
However, after two years, he said he felt he had not come any closer to that goal.
“I am going to relieve everybody of their concern and I’m going to resign as chair of the planning board,” Bergen said. The announcement was met with scattered applause.
The next meeting of the Somerville Select Board will be held on Wednesday, April 17 at 6 p.m. in the Somerville town office. For more information, call 549-3828 or go to somervillemaine.org/home.
