To the editor:
Upon reading the various stories of the conflict between the Lynnfield Historical Society and the town-appointed commission, it seems as though only one side is being told.
Keep in mind that the Society has held custodianship of our meeting house – the town symbol – for more than six decades. That group raised the money for its restoration from its use as a fire station, and has paid for almost all upkeep since then. The town has had to contribute very little through the years.
Since the early 1960s the Society has been operated by such local luminaries as Katherine Ross, Gordon Wilkes, Shirley Northrup, Jim and Mary Borg, my own parents – Arthur and Lillian Foulds, Don Harriss, Edie and Earl Richard, and so many more behind the scenes.
It has sponsored hundreds of lectures and presentations on local history, introduced authors, made the building available for Memorial Day and Veterans Day observances as well as numerous town celebrations.
The Society has handled the booking for residents who wish to have their own important celebrations at the site, again, with no action required by the town.
Each December one of our most important traditions takes place as the building is transformed into an old Country Store. It marks the unofficial beginning of the holiday season as Lynnfieldites buy their greens, cheese, baked beans, penny candy, and so much more. These latest actions appear to put an end to this.
One of the articles mentions that no formal agreement exists between the society and the town. That may be technically true, but considering that Town Meeting, in 1961, voted unanimously to give custodianship to the society, and there is obviously no secret that it has been in place since that time, it certainly seems that there is a tacit agreement. To say otherwise does not depict an accurate description.
Apparently there have been some issues with the filing of proper forms, but that sort of thing happens when you have a volunteer organization made up of volunteers who have careers, family and other obligations. I understand that they are working hard to correct the situation.
My problem is the lack of fairness. Apparently neither the Select Board nor the historical commission has given the society any sort of public hearing to discuss the matter and to correct problems. Instead it seems as if a unilateral decision was made, based on exaggerated shortcomings of the society to remove them from the meeting house and then took a somewhat theatrical stance of changing the locks, thus not even allowing the group to remove its items.
After 61 years of faithful service to our community the Lynnfield Historical Society deserves better.
Dianne Foulds
Lynnfield
