Mary Byrne
A clerical error cost a past board member the opportunity to be considered for a seat on the Board of Assessors.
Select Board Chair Roy Epstein issued a clarification Monday night regarding how his words were interpreted after a recent board meeting regarding Dan Dargon’s appointment to the Board of Assessors.
On Monday, May 13, when introducing Dargon, Epstein noted that he was “the only viable candidate” for the position. The conversation that night was limited to Dargon’s qualifications. Patrick J. Murphy IV, whose seat Dargon would be assuming, was hardly mentioned. After the meeting, Epstein declined to comment further on why Murphy wasn’t a viable candidate.
“That triggered some amount of comment around town,” Epstein said at a meeting on Monday, May 20.
Murphy ran uncontested for the Board of Assessors on April 2.
At the same election, voters passed ballot Question 2, changing the Board of Assessors from an elected position to an appointed positions. .
Question 2 passed by 11 votes, 4,239-4,228. However, within 10 days of the election, a recount request was filed. According to the official tally, the ‘Yes’ vote prevailed, 4242-4238, a difference of four votes.
If Question 2 had not passed, Murphy would have secured a three-year term. Because it passed, the Select Board became the appointing authority.
“Thet town was informed at the beginning of April that Pat Murphy had not completed certain training requirements,” Epstein said Monday night. “That notice came from the [state] Department of Revenue. That statement by the DOR turned out to be … erroneous for reasons I can’t explain.”
Later the same day, the DOR issued a correction stating that Murphy had, in fact, completed the necessary training.
“That correction, unfortunately, was not communicated to the Select Board,” Epstein said. “At the time we made the appointment, my understanding was that the problem existed when, in fact, it did not. There’s nothing darker behind any of that.”
He emphasized his statement the previous week had “nothing to do” with Murphy’s character.
In an interview with The Voice, Murphy, who has served on other committees, including the MBTA Communities Advisory Committee and coaches several sports teams, said he doesn’t plan to serve again on any boards after “being admonished” in public. He said he wasn’t there to explain the clerical error, leading the board to believe he wasn’t a viable candidate.
In the meeting, Murphy’s name wasn’t mentioned until it was brought up by Charles Laverty, a member of the Board of Assessors, who praised Murphy for his service to the board and questioned why he wasn’t a viable candidate. Those questions, however, were left unanswered until Monday night.
“I was pretty upset about how it was mentioned at the meeting,” Murphy said. “It questioned whether I was suitable to serve on the Board of Assessors.”
Murphy was appointed in November 2022 to fill a vacancy and then elected in 2023.
“Had I been informed at the beginning of April that he had completed all his requirements, I would have gladly put him forward as a candidate,” Epstein said on Monday. “I don’t know that the results would have been any different, but that is the situation.”
