Concord Select Board Members Quell Public Outcry by
Clarifying Meaning of Proclamation & Disavowing IHRA Examples
April 16, 2026
Read CJFS’s Letter to the Select Board & Full Report on Massachusetts’ Antisemitism Commission
BOSTON — At a recent public meeting, a strong majority of Concord’s Select Board clarified that their January antisemitism proclamation did not adopt the controversial examples associated with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Chair Mark Howell noted that statements from fellow Select Board members indicate that “for most of us the examples were not part of the adoption in the first place.” The Select Board also previously admitted to violating Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law when drafting the antisemitism proclamation.
In January, Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff urged the Select Board not to “codify IHRA into town policy.” CJFS explained that the IHRA is “not a well-designed tool to cultivate civic environments free from antisemitism” in part because its examples “conflate[ ] criticism of Israel with antisemitism and ha[ve] been routinely employed to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.” The ACLU had similarly explained that the IHRA definition “incorporates examples of constitutionally protected political criticism of Israel.” In response to public outcry about Concord’s proclamation, nearly all of the Select Board’s five members clarified on Monday that the Select Board did not intend to endorse those examples.
Select Board member Paul Boehm explained: “If you read [the IHRA document], it says, ‘here’s the definition’—that's a paragraph—and then the examples come later. You know, it’s not true that the definition includes both.” He also stated that the Board intended to adopt only the literal definition of antisemitism in the document and that adopting the controversial examples “was not the intent then nor is the intent now.”
Select Board member Wendy Rovelli concurred, explaining that “my understanding of the intent was to adopt the two-sentence non-legally binding working definition,” and that “[f]rom my perspective this did not include the associated examples.”
Select Board Chair Mark Howell likewise acknowledged the “vigorous ongoing debate” surrounding IHRA and its implications and clarified: “I never intended to choose a side in that debate.” He added that, had he understood the extent of the controversy, “I would have rejected [IHRA’s] inclusion in favor of simply using the term antisemitism.”
In addition, Select Board member Mary Hartman acknowledged that, when she voted for the proclamation, she “did not pay particular attention to the specific definition of antisemitism” and only later became aware of “the controversy concerning the IHRA definition.”
By disavowing any intent to endorse the IHRA’s troubling examples, Concord’s Select Board members joined CJFS & hundreds of Jewish residents across Massachusetts who have recognized that one cannot “cultivat[e] a society free from antisemitism” by censoring criticism of Israel or conflating such criticism with antisemitism.
The need for Concord’s Select Board members to clarify the intent of their proclamation raises concerns for other Massachusetts communities that have “adopted IHRA.” Given IHRA’s fundamental ambiguity, when a public body votes to adopt the “IHRA definition” without greater precision, it should not be presumed to have also endorsed the document’s controversial examples.
Concord’s experience also serves as a cautionary tale and reminder that communities and local leaders must approach the delicate issue of defining antisemitism through an open and deliberate process that fully airs all perspectives and clarifies important ambiguities before any action is taken. As Chair Mark Howell acknowledged last month in addressing the Open Meeting Law violations, “rushing does sometimes lead to mistakes.”
###
Concerned Jewish Faculty and Staff is a membership organization of Jewish faculty and staff from over 40 colleges and universities across Massachusetts and New England. We represent a range of backgrounds and hold diverse views, but we are united in opposing the invocation of Jews and Jewishness – and misguided or cynical claims of antisemitism – to penalize Palestine solidarity activism, to stifle academic freedom, or to otherwise attack inclusionary commitments. We believe that Jewish safety is deeply connected to the safety of all people, and that the fight against antisemitism cannot be separated from the struggle against all forms of oppression.