Silenced For Speaking Out: A Violation Of Open Meeting Law And Free Speech
The incident involving the alleged silencing of a speaker by Millbury Planning Board Chairperson Bruce DeVault on August 25, 2025, during a meeting to address a previous Open Meeting Law complaint, highlights a profound tension between official authority and the fundamental rights of public participation. This blog post examines the implications of this event, analyzing how the alleged action not only violated the spirit of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law but also appears to have contravened the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. By improperly cutting off a speaker based on viewpoint, the incident raises critical questions about viewpoint discrimination, due process, and the significant legal risks—including federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—that such behavior poses to a municipality and its taxpayers. This analysis will delve into why transparency and accountability are not merely procedural niceties but are essential safeguards against the erosion of public trust and the chilling of civic engagement.
Serving as a chairperson or member of a town board or committee is a position of public trust, not a personal kingdom. It's a common misconception that holding such a role grants one absolute power or places them above the law. In reality, the authority of a chairperson is not a free-for-all; it is strictly defined by law, procedure, and the very purpose of public service. These meetings belong to the people, not the person wielding the gavel. The chairperson's role is to facilitate public business, ensure a fair and orderly process, and, above all, uphold the principles of open government. To act as if the meeting is a personal fiefdom or to silence a speaker out of personal animosity is to fundamentally misunderstand and abuse this public trust. It is a betrayal of the democratic process and a direct violation of the legal and ethical duties entrusted to every public servant.
Residents are fed up with unprofessional conduct, and accountability is no longer a suggestion—it's an expectation. Some officials may be uncomfortable being held to a higher standard, but that is precisely what the public demands and deserves. Learning about responsibility and accountability can be a tough lesson for those who don't already understand them. Misconduct and violations can be addressed through several avenues, such as filing complaints under the Open Meeting Law, submitting public records complaints when information is withheld, pursuing ethics complaints, or initiating federal civil rights lawsuits.
On August 25, 2025, Millbury Planning Board Chairperson Bruce DeVault allegedly committed a serious violation of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law by improperly cutting a participant off during the public comment period. This action was not based on any lawful rule like a time limit. Instead, it was an act of viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The irony is not lost on us: this alleged violation occurred during a Planning Board meeting specifically called to address a previous Open Meeting Law complaint. It's a profound and concerning disconnect. The very forum created to fix a past failure of transparency was used to commit a new and equally serious one. This suggests a blatant disregard for the law and a fundamental misunderstanding of the board's role—which is not to control the narrative or silence dissent, but to operate openly and transparently for the public it serves.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office is clear: while boards aren't required to allow public comment, any restrictions they impose must be reasonable, content-neutral, and applied equally to all speakers. That standard was not followed here. Planning Board Chairperson Bruce DeVault abruptly interrupted the speaker with remarks that revealed his personal frustration, not a lawful procedural basis:
“That’s good. I’m done. This meeting is going to end right now. I want to comment to you, but I can’t because I’ll probably be out of line.”
This statement shows the decision was personal and retaliatory. His words prove irritation at the speaker’s perspective and a willingness to silence a citizen because of a disagreement with their viewpoint.
After the meeting, the silenced individual asked Bruce DeVault what he had wanted to say that he couldn’t say on the record. His response:
“You are a pain in the ass, and you’re costing us all money”
Outside the meeting, residents couldn't help but openly laugh at his unprofessional outburst, which showed his apparent inability to grasp the seriousness of the situation. This public display of frustration resonated with a community already tired of officials and staff who seem tone-deaf to the issues that matter most to their constituents. This disconnect between the public and its officials only deepens cynicism and erodes trust in local governance. This underscores the urgent need for registered voters to make different choices at the ballot box. When elected officials repeatedly show a disregard for transparency and accountability, the community suffers. The only way to ensure that town leadership reflects the values of the public it serves is for citizens to hold them accountable through their votes. Electing new officials who are committed to open governance is the most powerful tool residents have to prevent such behavior from happening again.
A Pattern of Blame-Shifting
Bruce DeVault has adopted a familiar playbook: casting himself as the victim while shifting blame onto the very residents who seek accountability. Rather than acknowledging his own behavior or the missteps of fellow town officials and staff, he deflects by portraying those who raise legitimate concerns as the problem. This tactic is not only disingenuous but harmful. By targeting individuals who demand transparency, he sidesteps responsibility and further erodes trust in local government. The result is a chilling effect that discourages civic engagement and signals that speaking up will be met with hostility instead of accountability.
Some argue it's better to remain silent and sweep issues under the rug to protect a town's reputation. But staying quiet doesn't protect a community—it allows misconduct, legal violations, and wasteful spending to persist, causing even greater damage. True accountability and transparency are what build a town's credibility.
Addressing problems openly and correcting them demonstrates integrity, while hiding them only deepens mistrust and leads to greater costs for taxpayers. True leaders admit their mistakes and chart a better path forward. They understand that transparency and accountability build public trust, whereas secrecy erodes it. By tackling issues head-on, they show a genuine commitment to serving the public and ensuring a better future for the entire community.
The Legal Violations and Risks
When Planning Board Chairperson Bruce DeVault, any other town official, or staff member silences residents or retaliates against speech they personally dislike, they place the Town of Millbury in significant legal jeopardy. Both the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and federal courts have clearly ruled that suppressing speech in a public meeting because of its viewpoint violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Such conduct doesn't just risk local censure—it can open the door to federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When officials violate free speech, individuals may sue the municipality directly. If the plaintiff wins, taxpayers—not the individual official—bear the burden of paying for damages, attorneys’ fees, and any court-ordered remedies.
Furthermore, town officials who suppress speech or retaliate against criticism risk losing their qualified immunity, especially when conduct violates rights that are clearly established by law. Recent court rulings in Massachusetts have shown that officials can be held personally liable when their actions flout well-known constitutional protections. Qualified immunity does not shelter those who act outside the law or retaliate against protected speech. Beyond the financial and legal consequences, such actions cause lasting harm to community life: silencing dissent erodes public trust, breeds cynicism, and undermines citizens' faith in local government.
The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters
This incident isn't just about one speaker being silenced. It is about a broader erosion of public trust. When board chairs use their authority to retaliate against critical or unwelcome comments, they discourage residents from speaking up at all. That strikes at the very purpose of open meeting requirements—to ensure that the public can witness, participate, and hold government accountable.
Under both Massachusetts and federal law, suppressing public comment based on viewpoint is unconstitutional and creates legal risk. The Attorney General’s Office has the authority to enforce the Open Meeting Law, including requiring remedial measures or even nullifying actions taken at a tainted meeting. It is crucial that this kind of retaliatory silencing be addressed so that residents can speak openly without fear of suppression.
Residents shouldn't have to wonder whether their voices matter at a meeting. Once the floor is opened for comment, all voices must be heard—even when they are inconvenient for those in power.
This blog post is intended to educate and inform, not simply to criticize. Yet it must be acknowledged that most residents do not expect Bruce DeVault—or other town officials and staff—to engage in meaningful self-reflection on this matter. If past behavior is any indication, that absence of accountability will only perpetuate the problem. When unprofessional conduct goes unaddressed, it does not simply disappear; it festers, leading to repeated violations of law and procedure. Each violation, in turn, carries a price tag for taxpayers in the form of mounting legal expenses. Unless there is a genuine change in behavior and a commitment to transparency and professionalism, residents should anticipate that these unnecessary legal costs will continue to grow—diverting scarce public funds away from essential community needs.
Join the Movement for Transparency
Here's how you can make a difference and help hold town officials accountable.
Step 1: Contact Town Officials. Your voice is your power. We urge you to contact town officials directly to demand an immediate end to these practices. Insist on open and transparent government that views legal compliance not as the ceiling of what is expected, but as the floor—the absolute minimum. We should be aspiring for the ceiling of public service, where officials exceed expectations and honor the true spirit and intent of our laws.
Step 2: Show Up. Attend the next Millbury Planning Board meeting. Your physical presence sends a powerful message that you won't tolerate a lack of transparency and accountability. When you show up, you are reminding them that these meetings belong to the people, and you expect to be heard. The meeting will be held on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 7:00 PM at Millbury Town Hall, 127 Elm Street, or you may participate online via Zoom using Meeting ID: 844 3206 8762.
Step 3: Stay Informed. To remain aware and involved, subscribe to our blog. We'll provide timely updates on meetings, actions, and how you can continue to make a difference.
Step 4: Spread the Word. Share this information with your family, friends, and neighbors. Talk about it at school events, community gatherings, and local businesses. The more people who know about these practices, the stronger our collective voice becomes.
Together, we can make a difference. We, the people, hold significant power—and we must mobilize it against those who seek to take away our voices and our rights guaranteed under state and federal laws.