Recently we’ve become aware of an opinion by Town Counsel addressing the conflict issues surrounding Selectman Mary Blanchard. This opinion was requested by our interim Town Administrator (T.A.) Mike Racicot and was electronically conveyed to him on September 7, 2009.
Clearly, the existence and release of this opinion – credited to an inquiry by the Worcester Telegram & Gazette - came as a surprise to many, including myself. Were it not for a query from the T&G soliciting my response in regards to their discovery of this document, I would still today be unaware of its existence.
Surprisingly, based upon correspondence between the interim T.A. and myself, it appears that this document may not have been a surprise to all on the Board. In response to my inquiry relative to the existence of this document and what I perceived as his failure to provide same to the Board, Mr. Racicot indicated that he “personally gave [me] and the other Selectmen a copy of Attorney Lauren Goldberg's opinion, dated September 7, 2009, at the regularly scheduled Selectmen's meeting held on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. PERSONALLY”. I challenged his ascertain, pointing out that he had never “personally” given said document to me resulting in a revision wherein he replied that he had “set the document on the table at your computer nest that meeting while you were berating Mrs. Blanchard”. An interesting choice of verbiage from an employee of the Board charged with professionally discharging information to the selectmen.
The importance of this revelation, if true, is that it would suggest the existence of this document was known by some members of the Board. This is somewhat disconcerting as it implies that other Board members, if aware of its existence, chose not to recognize its significance in relation to Mrs. Blanchard’s conflict as outlined by Town Counsel. Equally, and fairly, one could argue that either they believe no conflict exists or they are simply unconcerned and would prefer to focus their energies elsewhere. Clearly, that is a personal determination that each has a right to arrive at via individual deliberation. Each of us must prioritize items in a manner consistent with our time.
More importantly however, the existence of this document – if known to Mrs. Blanchard - calls into question comments made by her during the 09-24-09 selectmen’s meeting. During that meeting, while in session to appoint a new Search Committee, Mrs. Blanchard recused herself from participation and moved to a seat in the audience. Based upon State Ethics guidelines, I questioned Mrs. Blanchard’s presence in the room as it is contrary to guidance provided by the Ethics Commission (right sidebar State Ethics Commission, I. Restrictions on your actions, Self-dealing, paragraph one). Specifically, said guidance states that “As a Selectman, you may not act in any way that affects these interests, positively or negatively, nor may you act on any matter that affects these interests within the foreseeable future. If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal”.
In response to this challenge, Mike Racicot stated that Town Counsel would recommend leaving the room as “the best course of action”, prompting Mrs. Blanchard to say that “I [she] haven’t seen that in writing so, ah there’s been plenty of times when people have recused themselves and sat in the room”. The importance of this statement is that if as Mike Racicot claims, he provided this opinion “personally” to all selectmen, revising this statement to read“ setting the document on the table at [my] computer nest…”, it challenges Mrs. Blanchard’s ascertain that she hadn’t “seen that in writing”. The opinion (right sidebar) clearly identifies that the best course of action is to leave the room. As well, it calls into question Mr. Racicot’s statement that Town Counsel would recommend such, when (it appears) he in fact knew that Town Counsel had recommended such. One might argue that he was remiss in not highlighting the existence of this document during this discussion. Bear in mind that Mrs. Blanchard herself had publicly positioned on 4 January, 2010, that “we should always abide by Town Counsel’s opinion whether we agree with it or not”.
The transcript segment of the 09-24-09 exchange referenced above, in terms of Mrs. Blanchard leaving the room is as follows:
Mary Blanchard: “Before we begin, there hasn’t been a final determination yet on the status of the applications that came in to the first Search Committee, knowing that and knowing that and that my husband has one of those applications, I will recuse myself from appointing the second search committee.”
Scott Garieri: “Ok, so ah moving on to”
Tom Creamer: “Scott, A point of clarification, I believe that when an individual recuses themselves that they are not allowed to be in the room as well”.
Mary Blanchard: “They don’t have to leave the room”
Tom Creamer: “I believe it might be considered participation if an individual is in the room”
Mike Racicot: “It’s the best course of action, Town Counsel feels is to leave the room but there is no legal requirement that they leave the room, but it’s recommended”
Tom Creamer: “So Town Counsel has recommended such”
Mike Racicot: “That would be what Town Counsel’s opinion would be”
Tom Creamer: Ok, and so is Mrs. Blanchard umm, going to concur with Town Counsel’s opinion or ignore it?”
Mary Blanchard: I haven’t seen that in writing so, ah, there’s been plenty of times when people have recused themselves and sat in the room”
Tom Creamer: “That, that may well be the case but I’m not sure that was correct then either. Well, if the Board is willing to proceed with an individual in the room during a recusal, then I think that one should caution, ah I’m going to caution the Board though that once we begin down that path we are now either establishing and/or creating a, ah, precedent, so if that’s the Board’s wishes then we can proceed.”
Additional discussion ensued and at 5 minutes 50 seconds into discussion Mrs. Blanchard made the following statement:
“Well Scott, seeing as your requesting it um, I’ll abide by your request but however I see no problem with me staying here, there’ll be no influence and I’m a little bit tired, frankly, of Charlie and I taking the heat for this disastrous, disastrous search”.
To be fair, it is entirely possible that just as I was unaware of this document’s existence prior to 8 January 2010, Mrs. Blanchard too, may have been oblivious to its existence. If so, this further challenges Mr. Racicot’s ascertain that he “personally” provided it to all selectmen, while “setting the document on the table at [my] computer nest”. A reasonable individual would surmise it is either one way or the other; it cannot be both; or at least one would think.
Adding to the ambiguity of this document’s existence – if Mr. Racicot’s ascertains are true, is the odd manner in which he made said document “personally” available to the selectmen. Dramatically departing from previous and post delivery procedures, Mr. Racicot chose to refrain from attaching Town Counsel’s opinion to his Administrator’s report, as historically done. Attached to every other report provided by Mr. Racicot have been relevant documents – including opinions from Town Counsel – necessary for the Board to deliberate appropriately. These reports are public domain; as such, they are public record. One is confounded by the departure from standard practice as it relates to the “personal” delivery method attended this particular document.
Consider past practice. When the Board was asked by Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot to consider challenging the sovereignty of the Board of Health, it was provided with Town Counsel’s Opinion as well as additional information supporting their request, in advance of the meeting. So too, when asked to support the extension of Mr. Racicot’s services beyond those allowed by the Town Charter, Mr. Racicot and Mrs. Blanchard provided the Board with Town Counsel’s opinion nearly two weeks prior to our final deliberations. In both instances Mr. Racicot and Mrs. Blanchard were quick to regularly reference Town Counsels opinion in support of their positions. One is perplexed that on an issue of such magnitude to the community, particularly in light of the controversy surrounding it, Mr. Racicot failed to ensure that his document was part of his informational packet to the Board, apparently preferring to remain silent relative to the clear conflict violations it documented.
When Charles Blanchard requested copies of Executive Session minutes from the initial Town Administrator’s Search Committee (TASC), Mr. Racicot spent hours redacting those minutes, then providing an unsolicited copy to the Board via the selectmen’s packets. Those minutes were of little consequence to us, yet Mr. Racicot ensured they were provided to us. So too, when Mr. Racicot constructs letters or memos to residents or town employees involving any manner of incidental significance, he ensures said correspondence is part of our informational packet. As well, when his office received an anonymous call from a “Mansfield” resident, preceded by several anonymous (as in fictitious in origin) emails from same regarding a finalist, Mr. Racicot had his secretary electronically convey them to the Board. In so doing, it appears that Mr. Racicot tendered more significance to anonymous and unsubstantiated claims than he did an opinion of extreme consequence from Town Counsel. Is it not odd that a document of such acute importance was rendered little priority or standing in terms of publicly conveying and acknowledging it existence?
Consider as well one of the recommendations from Town Counsel that was never publicly identified by the interim T.A. or acknowledged by the Board. In the opinion rendered by Town Counsel, it was recommended that all selectmen submit a disclosure acknowledging that, were they to consider appointing Charles Blanchard as the Town Administrator, such would be based upon the merits of same, void of any personal relationship with Mr. Blanchard or his wife. To date, per confirmation from the Town Clerk’s Office, this has not been done. If in fact, as claimed by Mr. Racicot, all members of the Board were “personally” provided with Town Counsels Opinion, setting “the document on the table at [my] computer nest that meeting while you were berating Mrs. Blanchard”, then why have the selectmen – myself included - neglected to do so? At least one selectman, confirmed after last Monday’s meeting that he had received this document on the evening of September 8, 2009. NOTE: As of 3:30 this afternoon, I filed said Disclosure with the Town Clerk.
Fundamentally, there appears to be two conclusions that one may arrive at in terms of this issue. The first being that all members did not “personally” receive this document as claimed by the Town Administrator. Undoubtedly, if I had received said document, it would have been previously posted on for public review. As well, I would have referenced it repeatedly during the issues attending this “disastrous search”, to quote the B.O.S. Chairman. The other conclusion is that some Board members received it and were simply unmoved by its content. This is not offered as a criticism if such is the case, as at least two of them have demonstrated objectivity and integrity during this entire process. It is merely stated in terms of what appears to be a fair assessment relative to their response in light of the existence of this document - if, of course they are actually aware of it.
If the latter is true, then it would suggest that the energies of this selectmen have been misplaced in challenging the obvious conflict(as I perceive it) that has surrounded this issue since its beginning. If other Board members were aware of this opinion and were unmoved by it, then all of the protestations and concerns expressed by this selectman are, and have been, of no consequence. In fact one could argue that they have served as nothing more than noise and content to fill spaces in local news reports.
If the Board as a whole is comfortable with the obvious conflict presented by Mrs. Blanchard’s participation, as identified by Town Counsel, then my efforts to convince them otherwise is of little merit. It becomes a colossal waste of energy that might be focused elsewhere. There is an old saying, “You don’t get over a 20 foot wall by banging your head against it; you merely get a headache. Perhaps it’s best to sit in the shade of the wall and merely accept its presence”.
George Bernard Shaw once said that, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”.
4 comments: