Over the last several days, I have struggled in terms of posting an article in response to the information released to the press, which identified two town employees as being the subject of scrutiny by the Town Administrator.
In light of my decision to seek voter support for the position of Sturbridge selectman, I did not want to be accused of politicizing this issue. To raise the issue risked assertions by some that I was engaging in political positioning. To say nothing, risked a contradiction in terms of my own self-respect and credibility as it relates to the manner in which I either objectively address issues with conviction or I do not. Thus, I cannot remain silent. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.
Clearly, for those who’ve read the article, there is little doubt that an issue of jurisdiction has manifested at Town Hall. As well, there are concerns and questions about hourly wages that have been disbursed to town employees. Each of these issues is significant and no doubt important in terms of the responsibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of government. As well, there is a fiduciary responsibility for government to ensure that the conveyance of taxpayer money is done in the most open and appropriate manner possible.
Thus, there is neither disagreement nor lack of support on the part of this writer for ensuring that tax dollars and fees collected are distributed correctly. As a resident and now as a candidate, I have raised the issue of fiscal responsibility on a number of occasions over the last several years. To that end, I welcome a review of expenditures or wages disbursed by all departments on a more regular basis to ensure the efficiency and appropriateness of such.
What I do question as a resident however, is the manner by which this particular review is being conducted in the press. To be clear, I am not questioning the press itself, as they have an obligation to report, but rather the information provided to the press as it relates to this issue. Two employees have been specifically identified as being the subjects of a financial review.
Currently, there has been little more provided than speculation, innuendo, and the suggestion of possible “malfeasance”. Clearly, the simple appearance of such warrants an in-depth review in order to fulfill one’s fiduciary responsibility to this community.
With that said however, one must question the release of employee names when said employees could just as well be the victims of poor record keeping or poor management practices as opposed to malfeasance. Until a review is complete and the determination is made, both sides of the equation are equally viable outcomes.
Let me be very clear, I am not suggesting the lack of malfeasance on the part of these employees any more than I am suggesting that such malfeasance exits. I am simply stating, that until such has been determined – if in fact, such is the case – the naming of these two individuals by the Town Administrator or anyone else associated with this review, is in my view, a disservice to these individuals, their families, and this community.
Despite the final outcome, whatever that may be, these individuals, one of whom is a life-long member of this community, have had their names associated with possible malfeasance. As such, it is likely that some may have already convicted them in the court of public opinion. It is one thing to produce hard data, evidence, or witnesses that can quickly substantiate allegations; it is something all together different to do so without such.
To be clear, I have no personal bond to either one of these individuals, which is in any way influencing my position. I met one of them briefly and solely during a plumbing inspection of a gas fireplace insert 5 years ago. The other, I’ve interacted with on three occasions in terms of town related affairs. My concern here rests solely in the appropriateness, or lack thereof, in terms of what appears to be unnecessarily identifying employees in the press prior to the conclusion of any significant review.
Thus, one is left to contemplate just who benefits from the naming of these two employees or any employees for that matter, prior to an appropriately and objectively conducted review. This writer can think of no one, and as such, I find it unfortunate and misguided that such occurred.
6 comments: