I spent a lot of time Thursday talking to people about their reactions to the news that Anne Awad and Robie Hubley got married.

I talked to the Town Manager and several Select Board members and people from all parts of the local political spectrum. Responses ran the gamut from outrage that neither one has yet resigned from the Select Board, to outrage that such a private matter was even being discussed among decent people. But ultimately people either felt it was OK or Not OK.

I had pages and pages of notes and eloquent quotes, and then I thought – now what?

Do I write an article with equal pro and con weighting? Do I weight it a little more one way to support my own opinions, or a little more the opposite way to show I’m “open-minded and fair.” As I can’t conduct a scientifically valid study of Amherst resident reactions, what is the point of putting forth X-number of anecdotal musings anyway? And if I am not writing to support any particular conclusion, then what would be edifying about my reporting on the range of frankly predictable reactions that people had to this?

News flash: some people are angry about it, some people think anything that isn’t illegal is perfectly fine, some people think voters had a right to know, some people think it’s none of our beeswax, some people think they might have handled things differently, some people think private life is private, some people felt commenting made them vulnerable and some people think that even thinking about the topic is a complete waste of time. Et cetera.

This was the first “hot topic” to come up since I started this site, and I felt compelled to cover it. But I realized that covering it provided no new information. To be reported fairly, it required balanced reactions from both sides – no problem. But to be reported relevantly, it needed something more. But what? Did someone let slip some juicy morsel in a moment of candor or careless speech which they probably regretted? Is that as good as it gets?

Ultimately, there was no “there” there.

What is the lesson? I think there are a couple.

For me and this site:

Quantity does not equal quality. If I don’t have something relevant to report, then why bother?

This story, for example, was in the past. If I had thought the relationship was germane to their work as Select Board Members or that the public had “a right to know,” then pursuing it in the rumor and gossip stage would have been the responsible thing to do. To address the subject only after the fact would be disingenuous

For the Select Board and all of us, perhaps:

One’s actions are open to interpretation and will be interpreted any number of ways, often not in the ways intended. Open your mind and broaden your perspective. Troubleshoot your decisions. How might others see or even mis-see this? Consider the possibility that what you are doing or contemplating might be interpreted in the most negative possible manner. Anticipating a best-case scenario is rarely a good strategic plan. Then act accordingly.

Public office and other public acts of putting one’s self “out there,” invite scrutiny. It is naïve to think otherwise. And if it is news to you that people find a story about the private lives of public officials compelling, then you must be from outer space. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but if you are surprised by it, then let me be the first to welcome you to life in today's America.

So what do I think of this? Who cares? What difference does it make? But since I put a lot of people in the uncomfortable position of “going on the record” about this, I’ll turn the tables: I think it was unfortunate to have the first public confirmation of this long-rumored relationship be a post-wedding announcement. It feels like a defensive move. As one who had long heard whispers about this, I always wanted to take the high road and not give credence to the rumors. Isn’t that what we’re taught? Gossip is bad – don’t believe everything you hear. So I feel vaguely offended that I was mentally “defending their honor” when the “gossip” turned out to be “fact.” And here’s the kicker – if there’s nothing to hide – then why hide it? I feel like it was hidden, which only made its significance loom larger. To me, it would have been the right thing to do for Ms. Awad to have addressed this, at the very least, during her re-election campaign last spring, because that would have acknowledged that some people may consider this relevant to their voting decisions, and hence, they may care to know.

But the eminently quotable and newlywed Mr. Hubley probably summed it up best when he said to me: “No matter when I might have told people, someone can say ‘I wish he had told me sooner.'”

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe