We get better government, and a better Barrington, when everyone can freely speak their minds.”

Carl Kustell

Statements made in a recent town council member’s newsletter have left another member of the council feeling concerned.

In Jacob Brier’s emailed newsletter for April, he wrote about an exchange that took place at this month’s council meeting during the public comment period. 

Brier titled the section of his newsletter “Public Comment, and a Concerning Response.” It focused on a discussion about the Barrington United Veterans Council and whether it should be placed back in charge of the Memorial Day observances in town. 

Brier wrote about fellow council member Carl Kustell, who said during the meeting that the Barrington United Veterans Council has agency to speak on behalf of the town’s veterans and should be “front and center” with the planning and execution of veterans-related events in Barrington.

Brier did not speak during the public comment period at the meeting. 

Instead, in his newsletter he wrote: “I became increasingly concerned as he (Kustell) appeared unphased by the BUV’s actions and undeterred in his support of them, despite their bigoted statements and deceitful representations. It was troubling to hear a member of our Town Council advocate for elevating the BUV and its president to a position of prominence – as an endorsed leader – in our community.

“Councilor Kustell seemed to be looking for a reversal of our prior month’s vote. It is fortunate that the Open Meetings Act prevented us from doing anything more than having a discussion. If Barrington is to be taken seriously as a town that believes in the values of diversity and inclusivity, we cannot be perceived as even considering that for which Councilor Kustell advocated.”

In a statement to the Barrington Times, Kustell offered a response to Brier’s comments.

“At our April 4th Barrington Town Council meeting, I responded to public comment in opposition to the removal of the Barrington United Veterans Council from its historical role in planning and running the Memorial Day Parade,” Kustell wrote. “I based my argument exclusively on the BUV Council’s widely and long-recognized agency to represent Barrington veterans at Memorial Day events. 

“Councilor Jacob Brier declined comment. However, he recently publicly misrepresented my position by pretending that my support for restoring the BUV Council’s longstanding role regarding Memorial Day equates to support for or lack of opposition to the political views of its individual members. Mr. Brier knows better.”

Kustell wrote that he was careful to distinguish political actions by individuals versus the veterans’ organization. He wrote that he clarified the distinction between the non-partisan BUVC Council and the partisan BUV Coalition. 

“…and said I expect to vote differently from the BUV Council President ’95%’ of the time. Any doubt is easily resolved. The video of our Council meeting is on the town website. Public comments begin at approximately the 21:50 mark and my response begins at 31:40,” Kustell wrote.

“My deeper concern is Mr. Brier’s lack of adherence to the norms of free debate and association. In his newsletter, Mr. Brier justified penalizing the Barrington United Veterans Council in its official capacity by linking to personal social media posts of an individual BUV Council member (its President) to which Mr. Brier objects (some of which Mr. Brier mischaracterized, but that’s another matter).”

Kustell wrote that Barrington relies on volunteers who serve on entities that partner with the town, including boards and commissions. 

“Are people comfortable with Councilor Brier (or any other governmental official) scrolling through personal social media posts, identifying those he considers offensive, publicizing his subjective characterizations of these posts, and acting in an official capacity to punish individuals or an entire group with which they are associated? Mr. Brier apparently did so here,” Kustell wrote. 

Brier, in his newsletter, wrote that the “BUV” and its president were racist, islamophobic, anti-LGBTQ+, antisemitic, vulgar and sexist.

Kustell, in his response, wrote that this was an example of Brier’s “disturbing pattern of attempting to micromanage speech.”

“Mr. Brier was the prime sponsor of an unconstitutional so-called harassment policy. The ACLU opposed the policy as ‘extremely and unnecessarily broad.’ The policy was fatally flawed in lacking clear guidelines as to what speech was prohibited, thereby making enforcement arbitrary. Within months of the policy’s enactment, Mr. Brier’s associates deployed it against two colleagues he considered to be political rivals. A few months into my tenure, I warned of the policy’s potential chilling effect on speech and secured its repeal,” Kustell wrote. 

“Municipal employees have not been immune from overreach,” Kustell continued. “At our December Town Council meeting, Mr. Brier improperly, publicly, and loudly berated our outgoing Town Manager for discretionary communication practices. Mr. Brier knew or should have known that such matters regarding employees should be respectfully handled in executive session.

“At all levels of government, elected officials take an oath to support the Constitution and we should interpret that responsibility broadly to include supporting the both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. When confronted with speech we find objectionable, we do not suppress, penalize, or bully. We encourage and engage in robust debate. We get better government, and a better Barrington, when everyone can freely speak their minds.”