Based on the recent news that someone circulated an email regarding School Committee Candidate Charlie Arthur just prior to the April 5 elections, this is as good a time as any to shine a little antiseptic light on the notions of anonymity and it’s evil twin, retribution, in our town.

No matter what the validity or merits of a comment, insinuation or accusation, they should not be made behind the cloak of anonymity. 

Laws that ensure that accusers literally face the individual they accuse and that the accused is given time to respond to the accusation date back to the Romans and remain a part of our nation’s Constitution.

Why would anyone think that making an anonymous accusation would be acceptable behavior in Reading? 

Perhaps it is the result of a personal error of judgment. Or, perhaps it is because the Town itself has supported anonymous behavior in the past, thereby, at least tacitly, endorsing the practice.

Scan the meeting minutes of at least one of the town’s boards, committees and commissions and you will periodically notice that the town takes punitive action based on  “anonymous” tips.  If Town leaders appear to accept the use of anonymity then, over time,  what kind of message does that deliver to residents?

No doubt, the Arthur email and the occasional practices of a town government group are different in many ways, yet the use of anonymity in either case should be unacceptable among neighbors.

Somewhere at the core of the type of anonymous behavior recently witnessed by the community is the desire for retribution and that is as bad, if not worse than, anonymity.

Hard as it is may be for some to believe or admit, in private conversations long-term residents and business owners have acknowledged that Reading has a reputation for payback, and disagreements in town have been known to get personal. Some might chalk it up to a natural byproduct of cranky Yankee curmudgeons locking horns and holding a grudge, but that doesn’t make it right. In this light, the notion that an individual may not want to own up to their opinion is no less offensive, but it is at least, sadly understandable.

The bottom line on both anonymity and retribution is that they should be relentlessly driven out of town. Everyone should feel comfortable respectfully encouraging his or her neighbors to do the right thing and gently, constructively notifying them face to face when they don’t—only pursuing more public action when ignored. At the same time, no one should fear being treated harshly for disagreeing with town government, or asserting their rights relative to the enforcement of town rules. And no one should have to worry about being treated like an outcast from town cliques.

While Reading may cherish its’ self-described “small town” atmosphere, it should aggressively and actively banish any hint of a small town mentality, especially when it comes to anonymity and retribution. It’s up to all of us, including Town leaders, to set a better example than the one we have recently observed.