The Wakefield Human Rights Commission (WHRC) has decided how it will respond to future human rights atrocities such as the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians, including infants and children.

It will provide “resources.”

This decision stemmed from questions raised in The Wakefield Daily Item regarding the absence of a WHRC response to the cold-blooded and barbaric attacks by Hamas.

Nobody would have even noticed the lack of a local response to these atrocities halfway around the world if the WHRC hadn’t assumed a front and center role in staging a “Vigil for Peace and Solidarity” on Wakefield Common following the 2019 massacre at two mosques in New Zealand that killed 51.

Now, in the wake of the recent criticism, the WHRC has sought to downplay its role in that 2019 vigil, claiming that the WHRC merely signed on to the event that was put together by the local Clergy Council. But contemporaneous press releases, social media posts and a videorecording of the 2019 vigil tell a different story, clearly showing that the WHRC’s involvement was central.

“The primary topic of this meeting is on a policy on how and when we should respond to crises and situations in the community or the world at large,” said WHRC chair Sherri Oken at the start of the WHRC’s Dec. 28 meeting.

Oken blamed the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law for the WHRC’s inability to take a stand on the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks for the past three months.

“There are great restrictions on us in terms of when we can meet, when we can even have these discussions,” Oken said. “So, we are not able to act quickly. Unless we give the public 72 hours of notice, we can’t even meet to discuss these kinds of matters,” she said.

Actually, the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law requires meetings to be posted just 48 hours in advance.

“And we can’t vote unless we have a quorum,” Oken continued, “and we’re already short members, so it’s very, very hard for us to have a quorum.”

Which begs another question. Why is it so hard for the Wakefield Human Rights Commission to attract and retain members?

Oken remarked that she “didn’t even know” about the Dec. 7 menorah lighting ceremony on the Common, suggesting that someone should have alerted the WHRC. “I’m going to ask Rabbi Greg (Hersh) that the Clergy Council, in the future, if they have special ceremonies and commemorations, that they please let us know.”

The menorah lighting ceremony on the Common was not a function of the Clergy Council. It is presented every year by Chabad of the North Shore.

Commissioner Jessica Sutich suggested that posting resources seemed like an appropriate way for the commission to respond to major events involving human rights violations.

Sutich also attempted to deflect criticism of the commission by throwing others under the bus. She noted that there were no Town Councilors or citizens present at the WHRC’s October meeting to express concern following the Hamas attack.

“Everyone wasn’t rushing to our door looking for a response,” she said. “It would be helpful to get guidance if people are looking for us to respond.”

Isn’t it the WHRC’s job to provide leadership and guidance on issues involving human rights? Aren’t they supposed to be the experts in these matters?

Were people rushing to the WHRC’s door in 2019 demanding they respond to the New Zealand attack?

Ultimately, the commission agreed to put together a list of “resources” and, when future events warrant, they will disseminate the list under a boilerplate heading that describes the mission and role of the Human Rights Commission.

Apparently, taking a position on the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust is still a bridge too far for the Wakefield Human Rights Commission.
—
[This column originally appeared in the January 11, 2024 Wakefield Daily Item.]