RE-ELECT TOM CREAMER - APRIL 9, 2012

PRINCIPLE, INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, EQUITY

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

OFFICIAL DENIES EFFORT TO STEER STURBRIDGE JOB - 1992

The following article appeared in the the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, January 25, 1992. It is eerily similar to what one is presently witnessing her in Sturbridge. The difference today however, is that the efforts to "steer" the process are being engineered not by a majority of selectmen, but rather by one.

Interestingly, though positioned differently 18 years ago, there is a familiar name associated with both the 1992 and the 2009/2010 Town Administrator search process. Here then is the Telegram & Gazette article as taken from their archives.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
January 25, 1992

OFFICIAL DENIES EFFORT TO STEER STURBRIDGE JOB

Author: Bill Fortier; Staff Reporter

Edition: REGION
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Dateline: STURBRIDGE

STURBRIDGE - Chairman of Selectmen John J. Hart denied yesterday that his panel is trying to make sure interim Town Administrator Patricia A. Whalen gets that job permanently.

Accusations to the contrary surfaced this week after selectmen Tuesday night rejected all three finalists recommended for the post by a screening committee. Two, Richard A. Montuori, administrative assistant in Clinton, and Lawrence Cameron, town administrator in Sherborn, were rejected by 3-2 votes each. No motion was made to bring up for a vote the candidacy of the third finalist, James B. Somerville, town manager of Lincoln, Maine.

Hart, Emile H. Fortier and Rachel B. Remian voted against Montouri and Cameron while Bernd G. Stittleburg and Charles T. Blanchard voted for them.

PANEL DISBANDED

After those votes, the panel voted 3-2 to disband the search committee and form another one Monday night.

A controversy erupted several weeks ago when the search committee revealed it had not interviewed Whalen. Henry L. Burnett, search committee chairman, said the three people his board recommended were clearly the best candidates.

Selectmen, at a meeting one week later, voted to interview Whalen even though the charter says the panel can vote on no more than three candidates as recommended by the search committee. Whalen, citing what she called the best interests of the town, told selectmen Tuesday night she did not wish to be interviewed.

Whalen could not be reached for comment yesterday. Montuori declined comment yesterday on the search process.

Two members of the search committee, Edmond A. Neal III and Stittleburg, said they'd like to be on the new committee but Burnett said he wouldn't. Furthermore, in a telephone interview after Tuesday night's meeting, Burnett alleged the majority of the selectmen are doing everything in their power to make sure Whalen, who had her term as interim town administrator extended three months that night, will get the permanent job.

Town Clerk Susan T. Blair said yesterday many people she talked to agreed with Burnett. "They are mumbling that it seems obvious to them that three members of the Board of Selectmen want her to get the job and they are doing everything they can to keep her," Blair said.

CHARTER LIMITS TERM

The town charter, according to Blair, says clearly that a person can't serve as a non-permanent town administrator for more than six months. Whalen's six months ended Thursday. Selectmen Tuesday night, citing an emergency situation, voted unanimously to extend Whalen's term three months.

Blair said she feels the Board of Selectmen is circumventing the charter to give Whalen the best chance possible to land the job.

"I'm not surprised that Sue has that attitude," Hart said yesterday. "After all, she did leave the board in a huff."

Blair, citing a problem with the direction in which she felt the town was moving, resigned from the Board of Selectmen last April.

Hart denied that selectmen are working to make sure Whalen gets the job. "I'm only one selectmen but that is definitely not the case with me," he said. "That's not my intent."

While he acknowledged he'd be disappointed if Whalen isn't a finalist the second time around, he added he would respect any recommendation by the screening committee if they submitted other candidates to selectmen.

As for the allegation that selectmen are violating the charter by naming Whalen for another three months, Hart said Whalen is the only person with enough knowledge of town business to steer the community through the spring election and annual town meeting.
Posted by Thomas R. Creamer at 7:59 AM

3 comments:

  1. Tom,

    Great research! What do they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it!!

    Jeff Bonja
    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember that time oh so well. Pat Whalen couldn't please one of the Selectmen no matter what she did, he would always, I mean every every meeting, find fault with something or she didn't get something done that he wanted. Was that Selectman unreasonable, in my opinion yes, but even today the wife of that Selectman will tell you what a terrible ITA Pat was. When something comes out of their mouth to them its gospel and there just ain't no changing their minds.
    So history is repeating itself and some of the players then are still players now, damn!
    ReplyDelete
  3. What galls me the most is Mary has not taken the appropriate steps to reconcile or even minimize this issue with the board of selectmen. Knowing such a conflict exists within the board, especially now that two selectmen believe she has a conflict, she should do the right thing and request a written opinion from the Ethics Commmission.

    Having said that, however, I don't think she is capable of being unbiased in the writing of that letter. Several times over, she has applied her own interpretation of the law, ignoring the Sept 9th letter from town counsel and the interpretation of that letter by two colleagues on the board. As Harold White points out: the town counsel letter does not say "candidate" or "applicant"; it does not split hairs. In fact, it is crystal clear, referring to "spouse" only. The letter does not refer to certain meetings in which Mary cannot participate; it says "ANY" regarding discussions, meetings, or actions in the town administrator search process.

    Rather, Mary relies on a "phone call to Ethics" which does not cut the mustard; when you call the state ethics board, the lawyer du jour states openly that you should not rely on the phone discussion; that is because they know that how the caller frames the issue could (and likely, will) prejudice the ethics lawyer's statements given over the phone. In other words, the lawyer doesn't have all the facts in front of them and renders an educated guess built on what the caller tells them.

    Mary is irresponsible in her duties to her colleagues but more importantly, to every single resident in this town. Mary: bring this to resolution before someone does it for you.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)