Warning: This article is lengthy, technical, and personal. I will work to write future articles in a much simpler and impersonal way, but I felt that writing about specific personal incidents is worth sharing to help others become more comfortable about speaking up.

*For a list of all the articles in this series and other political articles, please go here: https://cityuntangled.com/category/politics/.

I am going to describe actual conduct of a Holyoke (MA) city councilor, some of which involved me. Holyoke City Councilor David K. Bartley (https://www.holyoke.org/contacts/david-k-bartley/) has had a series of problematic behavior that got him featured in newspapers. I am going to describe my personal experience with him in this article, but first, here is a well-known incident that happened in January of 2025 that did not involve me.

The 2025 Profanity Incident in Holyoke, MA

On January 8th, 2025, during the meeting of the Ordinance Committee of the Holyoke City Council, Ward 3 City Councilor David K. Bartley used the f-word on another city councilor and stormed out of the meeting. He thought that the chair of the committee was interrupting him and felt offended. I am going to link the video here so people can make their own decisions. Rather obviously, profanity and loud noise warning. If you are under 18, please make sure to watch it with your adult guardians. About 47m27s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcR73wZsowc&t=2847s.

Councilor Bartley’s action is now recorded permanently on page 8 of the January 8th, 2025 City minutes as:

Councilor Bartley took exception to being interrupted. He then suggested Chair I. Rivera jump in a <expletive> lake and left the meeting.

If you want to read the minutes yourself, go to https://www.holyoke.org/meetings/ordinance-committee-meeting-january-8-2025 and click the Minutes tab. It has the whole meeting package with agenda, minutes, video link, etc.

Holyoke Media has an article about the incident: https://holyokemedia.org/city-councilors-outburst-addressed/

And the January 24th, 2025 issue of the Holyoke Sun newspaper. It is on the front page: http://sun.turley.com/hs-archives/HOL012425.pdf [Edit: As of 2/16/2026, it seems unavailable.]

My Brief Involvement with Holyoke Politics from 2022 to 2024

This was not the first time Councilor David K. Bartley has inflicted verbal violence on another person, which could be a city government employee or a resident. I had two personal incidents with him, which I will write about. To clarify, his father is David M. Bartley, the former Massachusetts Speaker of the House and president of Holyoke Community College. He passed away on June 13, 2023 (https://www.hcc.edu/about/news-events-and-media/news-stories/bartley-mourned). I am writing about the son, David K., not the father, David M.

Here is the context about my incidents with him. From late September of 2021 to June of 2024, I lived in Holyoke, MA in search of affordable housing. Holyoke is a formerly prosperous mill city once nicknamed the Paper City. It went into long-term decline after most of its mills shut down by the 1970s. Hazen Paper Company (https://www.hazen.com/) remains and some of the mills were re-purposed. Open Square (https://www.opensquare.com/) and the multiple cannabis businesses are some examples.

I was not planning on getting involved with Holyoke politics until April of 2022 when I learned about a public hearing for a proposed zone change in the parcel right next to the condominium complex I was living at. The Ordinance Committee of the City Council held the hearing. The neighborhood is zoned Downtown Residential (DR) where car and truck repair shops are not allowed and the parcel next to me had a truck repair business which turned out to not have the required permits, in addition to not being allowed by the zoning ordinance. The owner proposed to change only his parcel to Business Highway (BH) so he can legally operate the business. 

April 26, 2022 was my first public comment ever at Holyoke City Hall. 46m20s at https://youtu.be/Kc8yy4w3Okg?t=2777. I noted that besides the current challenges of truck noise and greater road wear in front of the property, possibly due to trucks going back and forth frequently, changing the parcel had the potential risk of allowing for other uses that would not be allowed in DR. I was opposed but not vehemently. I warned about the risks and proposed looking into other compromises, including “A happy and satisfactory solution for everybody.” DR allows for mixed-use, so the owner could have other types of allowed commercial uses on the first floor and residences on the second floor.

This comment got the attention of Mayor Joshua Garcia, who already had my contact information from an email I sent earlier to the planning office. He called me and proposed appointing me as a member of the Planning Board to replace a member who will soon be stepping down. All Planning Board members are unpaid. Without thinking deeply about the implications, I agreed and unwittingly threw myself into the world of Holyoke politics. My term started in July of 2022, and I stepped down in May of 2024. I was appointed for five years and lasted a little less than two years. That is a story for another article.

I would make public comments at each meeting about the proposed zone change. On 6/28/2022, the attorney for the property owner, Thomas Wilson, raised objections to me commenting, based on the rationale that I was recently appointed to the Planning Board and set to start in July, but the chair of the committee allowed me to speak.  https://youtu.be/22ivFZFyCfM?t=3332. The attorney was appointed to the Holyoke Library Board of Trustees by the mayor in April of 2022 (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/holyokema/uploads/2022/04/Item-6-Appointment-letter-for-Thomas-Wilson-to-serve-as-a-member-on-the-Library-Board-of-Directors.pdf).

Now for my brief thoughts on the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment right on free speech and the Fifth Amendment right on due process are fundamental. Just because you get appointed to a board does not mean you lose your entire ability to speak at public meetings. You have to recuse and not deliberate as a board member, but you retain your basic right to speak as a general member of the public. It would be problematic if you cannot speak at all about an issue affecting your neighborhood when everyone else can speak, especially in this case where the very topic got me appointed to the Planning Board. It is a delicate balance between your public responsibilities and free speech rights.

Here is the First Amendment (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And the Fifth Amendment, emphasis mine (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/): 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Communication with the State Ethics Commission in 2022

After the attorney’s claim, I emailed the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission (SEC) to clarify. After some emails back and forth to clarify details, on August 18th, 2022, the attorney for the State Ethic Commission sent me an email confirming that I have the right to speak as a general member of the public while following some guidelines. Here is a copy of the email, after I redacted names and other sensitive information:

SUBJECT: Follow-up

FROM: NAME_REDACTED <REDACTED@state.ma.us>

TO: Nathan Chung <REDACTED@gmail.com>

DATE: 18/08/2022 08:28

Nathan,

The following is advice regarding acting in your own capacity in matters in which you may have a conflict of interest as a planning board member. You may always act on your own behalf, and you may always state your own personal points of view. However, you should always make it clear that you are acting on your own behalf, not representing someone else and not acting in any official capacity. You may even represent yourself before a town board (but remember that you may not take any type of official action on a matter that affects you). For example, if you are abstaining as a planning board member from participating in a matter which affects your property, you should leave the table and sit in the audience while the matter is before the board. You may participate in this matter only when other members of the public are invited by the board to participate. When you participate, you should state that you are not acting as a planning board member but on your own behalf.

I hope this is helpful. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

[NAME_REDACTED]

General Counsel and Legal Division Chief

State Ethics Commission

Furthermore, the SEC guidance on conflict of interest law for selectboard members supports this advice. ( https://www.mass.gov/info-details/conflict-of-interest-law-explanation-for-board-of-selectmen-members):

2. Acting in your Personal Capacity: You may always act on your own behalf, and you may always state your own personal points of view. However, you should always make it clear that you are acting on your own behalf, not representing someone else and not acting in any official capacity. You may even represent yourself before a town board (but remember that you may not take any type of official action on a matter that affects you). For example, if you are abstaining as a selectman from participating in a matter which affects your property, you should leave the table and sit in the audience while the matter is before the board. You may participate in this matter only when other members of the public are invited by the board to participate. When you participate, you should state that you are not acting as a selectman but on your own behalf.

First incident on August 23, 2022

On August 23, 2022, I experienced firsthand David K. Bartley’s behavior when he yelled at and prevented me from speaking on the rationale that I am a Planning Board member who already spoke at multiple meetings. 9m30s at https://youtu.be/8I3_skJKWVs?t=570. He says,

Madam Chair, point of order. A point of order, please. [Note: A point of order is for raising concerns about procedural violations per Robert’s Rules of Order.] This is a member of the Planning Board who just recused himself. He has already spoken multiple times prior to being appointed. For him to be able to speak now, pro or con, is totally a conflict of interest. I’m amazed he has the chutzpah to come up to the microphone at this point. He’s on the Planning Board now. There’s no reason we should even hear him, whether or not he can vote on this.

You retain the basic right to speak even as an appointed government employee as the State Ethic Commission confirmed in the August 18th email. I had a decision to make: Do I raise issues about a City Councilor’s conduct less than two months into my very first volunteer government appointment? Is this councilor capable of harming other people using his position, which seems to be a possibility? I have done bad improv and standup comedy in the past, so I knew how to yell and swear. I was actually concerned that I would lose my temper if I spoke any further. Based on a combination of wanting to avoid conflict and my concerns about his capacity to do further harm, I stepped back. Looking back, I wonder if I should have brought up the State Ethics Commission email and spoke up.

Second incident on February 20, 2024

On February 20, 2024, during the Holyoke City Council public comment period, I asked the council to clarify to the public how much they would expect to save with the proposed reduction of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge on property taxes. To give a brief context, CPA is a State act that allows for municipalities to collect additional surcharge on property taxes for the purposes of historic preservation, open space/recreation, and affordable housing (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter44B). Some members of the city council proposed to reduce the surcharge rate from 1.5% to 1.0%, which sounds like huge savings but results in around $15 per year in savings for the median homeowner due to the small amount of the surcharge. To give you a TLDR, after more than a year of debating, it got on the ballot and the voters voted for the reduction: https://thereminder.com/local-news/holyoke-voters-choose-to-reduce-cpa-surcharge-to-1/ 

Right after I spoke on February 20, 8m5s at https://youtu.be/iiHIRRCPgz4?feature=shared&t=485, Councilor Bartley raised a point of order to say about my comment, “These conspiracy theories are lunacy.” 

I do not think my comment was lunacy but based on straightforward math that took a few steps. Technical math warning:

1. Census data showed the median home value in Holyoke to be $236,800 when I spoke. I got it from here, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/, which is under maintenance. The more up-to-date data show the median home value to be $255,300 (Value -> Owner-occupied units at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP04?q=median+home+value&g=060XX00US2501330840).
2. There is an automatic CPA exemption for the first $100k, so $136,800 is subject to the surcharge.
3. Multiply the above amount by the property tax rate to get the average annual property tax bill. It was $18.95 per $1,000 or 1.895% in 2024 (https://dls-gw.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdpage.aspx?rdreport=propertytaxinformation.taxratesbyclass.taxratesbyclass_main). So $2,592.36 is the property tax subject to the surcharge for the median homeowner.
4. Multiply the above amount by the surcharge rate of 1.5%, that is 0.015, to get the CPA surcharge amount. That’s about $38.89 per year, which is $39 rounded up to the nearest dollar. 
5. If you reduce the rate from 1.5% to 1.0%, that is a one-third reduction of about $13 per year, so the median homeowner would pay $26 per year for the CPA surcharge instead of $39.

About a month later on March 19th at the City Council public comment period, I addressed his behavior. Holyoke Media covered it: https://holyokemedia.org/resident-calls-out-bartleys-conduct/

This is the video of my comment, about 7m32s in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdI-1wPMRs&t=452s. The following is the transcript from Holyoke Media with some corrections and additions of sentences they omitted for brevity:

I’d like to address an incident at the February 22nd [My error. It was the 20th.] City Council meeting. It occurs about 9 minutes, 40 seconds into the recording on YouTube. During public comment, I raised a concern about the proposed CPA reduction language on the ballot being unclear. Well, a councilor raised a point of order to debate what I said. He said, “These conspiracy theories are lunacy and said it is the Law Department’s responsibility to write the language.” Using a point of order was arguably improper because it is for procedural violations, not debates. The claim that it is the law department’s responsibility to write the language is questionable since the assistant city solicitor later said that the city council controls the language.

Whatever the case, the City Council is the maker of the order and should be concerned with communicating with the public clearly. Being a public official is not a license to yell at, insult, or suppress people with whom you disagree. These types of behavior should not be normalized. City Council Rule 6E [“No member in debate shall make any references to another member, city employee, or member of the general public but in respectful terms.” at https://www.holyoke.org/documents/holyoke-city-council-rules-2025-06-17/] about  speaking to people in respectful terms applies to city councilors.  I could not find any rule about not naming any city councilor who behaved negatively. Councilor David Bartley from Ward 3 is the one I have been talking about. If he has a personal issue with me, we can meet at a public place to discuss.

Why I Continued to Speak after Moving to Another City

In the middle of 2024, I moved to Northampton, MA, a wealthier city about 10 miles up north. I thought I was done with politics, especially considering that I was working for the local government. Again, free speech right applies, but it is a delicate path. In November of 2024, I attended a Northampton City Council Budget Committee meeting out of curiosity and observed a city councilor who is not a member of the Budget Committee making an inaccurate statement. It was a very awkward moment due to my involvement with the local government, but I thought the incident was serious enough that I rushed to speak after this councilor was done speaking. The incident led me to writing a series of letters to the City Council and the School Committee outside of work times, including early mornings and evenings; weekends; and vacation times. More on that in the next part.