It was distressing to read the Nov. 5 letter from Ethan Robertson in the Recorder, concerning recent actions taken by the Ashfield Board of Health [”Government overreach by Ashfield Board of Health”].

In his letter, the writer takes exception to several recent board initiatives he regards as government overreach.

The writer is of course entitled to his opinion about the proper role of government and free to publicly question the decisions made by local government agencies, but in this case he exceeds the limits of democratic engagement when he denigrates the members of the Ashfield Board of Health as “inept” and “unfit to serve.” What is worse, he bases these denunciations on errors of fact and unfounded assumptions rather than evidence.

For all three issues that he cites — restrictions on the sale of tobacco, which are determined by Massachusetts state law, the single-use plastic ban, which was established by a majority vote at the Ashfield Town Meeting on May 6, 2023, and the “problem properties,” which the Board of Health is required to address because they pose a danger in the case of an emergency — the author neglects to recognize that while the Board of Health is acting according to its official responsibility to enforce state and local laws, its members neither wrote nor enacted those laws.

Beyond these errors, the more serious problem with the letter is the needlessly vitriolic tone that assumes the worst about those of his neighbors and fellow citizens who volunteer their time and expertise on the Board of Health. The author’s hostility is not only detrimental to his own interests, since it greatly hampers the cooperation that would be needed for him to have any productive influence on the board’s actions, but it also weakens the fabric of democracy at the local level, because it corrodes the public trust and broader community cohesion necessary for effectively carrying out the responsibilities of town government in the interest of the public good.

The danger of these inaccuracies is more than theoretical or rhetorical. Encouraging public distrust of, or animosity toward, the people who volunteer in local government has made public service in these forms increasingly dangerous. The past several years have been distinguished by a rising tide of abuse and threats of violence directed against local officials across the country, including people serving on school committees, election boards, boards of health, and similar bodies.

By issuing his criticism, based on erroneous claims, and in such intemperate and personally targeted terms, the letter writer fuels this noxious climate. By publishing his criticism in the Greenfield Recorder, the writer also bears public responsibility for the impact of his words.

And we should be clear: The author is wrong to describe the current members of the Board of Health as “unfit to serve.” On the contrary, they are, by virtue of their education (two hold master’s of public health degrees) and decades of professional experience in the fields of health care and public health, manifestly qualified, and the people of Ashfield benefit distinctly by their willingness to take responsibility for the town’s public health.

If the author is sincere in his concerns, he has many other more effective ways of engaging them. He could, for example, start by informing himself about the work of the Board of Health. For this, he could read the agenda and minutes of the board’s previous meetings. Beyond that, he could embrace the collective responsibility “we the people” bear for stewarding democratic government and work constructively to provide his input during the regular meetings of the Board of Health that are, like all town government meetings, open to the public.

Abby Ferla, Kit Sabo, Donna Sarro, Tiertza-leah Schwartz and Amy Troyer-Karas of Ashfield; Lauren Burke of Conway; and David Swiderski of Colrain.