James P. Ehrhard is the owner and manager of the firm of Ehrhard & Associates, P.C. (www.ehrhardlaw.com). He concentrates his practice in bankruptcy and general litigation. Prior to managing the firm, Mr. Ehrhard concentrated his practice on insurance and corporate defense litigation along with plaintiffs' trial work. He has handled cases in federal and state courts throughout Massachusetts. His firm is one of the largest bankruptcy firms in Massachusetts in terms of bankruptcies filed per annum.
Mr. Ehrhard received his B.A. from the University of Chicago and his J.D. from the University of Notre Dame Law School. Mr. Ehrhard has been a faculty member for Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education and he is a frequent lecturer to professional groups. He was a recurring guest host on WTAG's radio program "The Legal Express" and currently guest hosts on WESO's radio program "Money Matters".
Mr. Ehrhard is an elected member of the Tantasqua Regional District School Committee. He currently sits on the Building and Facilities subcommittee. He also serves on the Labor Negotiations subcommittee, representing the District in contract negotiations with various unions. In addition, Mr. Ehrhard is chairman of the Sturbridge Town Administrator Search Committee.
Mr. Ehrhard is married with a four year old daughter and three year old son. He is a member of St. Anne-St. Patrick Parish.
Learn more about James at www.jamesehrhard.com.
RE-ELECT TOM CREAMER - APRIL 9, 2012
Sunday, January 31, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
"...a 20 foot wall..."
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”.
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”.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Town Cousel's Septermber 7, 2009 Opinion
This past Friday, 8 January 2010, I received an inquiry soliciting a response from me relative to an opinion received on September 7, 2009 by the acting Town Administrator (T.A.). The legal opinion, which had been requested by the acting T.A sought guidance in terms of Selectman Blanchard's participation in the Town Administrator search.
I responded by questioning the opinion to which this individual referred, as I had no knowledge such existed. I requested a copy for the review, which is hosted in the right sidebar. I cannot attest as to who is responsible for the comments or the underlining evident in the document.
As the document (posted to the right) is a third generation copy, its quality is less than ideal, thus I have transcribed it below in its entirety, as sent to me. Here then is the opinion:
Monday, September 07, 2009 5:57:23 PM
From: Lauren F. Goldberg
Subject:
To: Mike Racicot
Cc: Joel Bard
Mike,
You have requested an opinion regarding the application of the Conflict of Interest Law to the possible appointment by the Board of Selectmen of the spouse of a current member of the Board (“Selectmen”) to the position of Town Administrator.
In my opinion, since the Board of Selectmen is the appointing authority for the Town Administrator, the particular matter of the appointment of the Town Administrator will create a conflict for the Selectman pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c268A ss19. In my further opinion, if the Selectman’s spouse were to be appointed by the other members of the Board, G.L. c268A ss 19, will prohibit the Selectman from participation in any decisions regarding the level of performance, salary or adjustments thereto, and/or the day-to-day active supervision of her spouse. In my further opinion, the Selectman, and the other members of the Board of Selectmen may wish to file a disclosure with the Town Clerk pursuant to G.L. c268A ss 23(b)(3) to dispel any appearance that they are acting on the basis of bias of favoritism.
Elected members of the Board of Selectmen are considered “municipal employees” for the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Law, G.L. c268A, and are subject to the prohibitions and restrictions of the Conflict of Interest Law. General Laws c268A ss 19, prohibits any municipal employee from participating in any particular matter in which a member of his immediate family has a financial interest. “Immediate family” is defined as, “the employees and his spouse, and their parents, children, brothers and sisters.” The Conflict of Interest Law defines the term “participation” to include “approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise.” The State Ethics Commission explains further that the term “participation” includes “both formal and informal lobbying of colleagues, reviewing and discussing, giving advice and making recommendations, as well as deciding and voting on particular matters,” EC-COI-98-4. The Conflict of Interest Law does not define the term “financial interest” however; the State Ethics Commission “has a long-standing practice of interpreting the phrase as meaning a financial interest of any size, either positive or negative, as long as it is direct and immediate or reasonably foreseeable. The term financial interest does not include financial interests that are “remote, speculative, or not sufficiently identifiable”. See EC-COI-02-2.
Thus, where the Selectman’s spouse seeks appointment to the position of Town Administrator, the provisions of G.L. c268A ss 19, prohibit the Selectman from participation in any way in the appointment process for Town Administrator. This would include, in my opinion, sitting at the table as a member of the Board of Selectmen while the Board discusses any of the candidates for appointment or the process for interviewing, comparing, and ultimately selecting a candidate; interviews and evaluates candidates, or takes any other action concerning the appointment of a Town Administrator.
In my further opinion, however, the provisions of G.L. c268A ss 19 would continue to be implicated of the Board of Selectmen were to appoint the Selectman’s spouse as Town Administrator. As you are aware, the Board of Selectmen, as the appointing authority, supervises the Town Administrator with regard to matters including performance and salary reviews and other personnel-related issues. The State Ethics Commission has concluded that day-to-day supervision of a member of an employee’s immediate family is prohibited, since ultimately hiring, firing and compensation decisions are made as a result of “cumulative impressions” based on day-to-day performance. The State Ethics Commission has concluded further that a supervisor may not avoid a violation of G.L. c268A ss 19, by delegating such duties to a subordinate. In this case, therefore, the Selectman would be obligated to abstain from exercising supervisory authority over her spouse. Of course, the remainder of the Board of Selectmen could continue to supervise the Selectman’s spouse. The Selectman’s abstention from participation will, in my opinion, satisfy the State Ethics Commissions’ concerns regarding “delegation” of authority. Be reminded, however, that for the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Law, “participate” is defined broadly. Thus, if a particular matter were to come before the Board of Selectmen implicating the Selectman’s spouse’s financial interests (i.e., a complaint concerning the Town Administrator or a request for a raise), the Selectman must recuse herself from participation in the matter by stepping down from the table at which the Board is sitting, and/or leaving the room during such discussions.
In my further opinion, the provisions of G.L. c268 ss23(), merit consideration. General Laws c268, ss23(b)(2) provides that no current municipal employee shall knowingly, or with reason to know, “use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to the similarly situated individuals”. There is no exemption from this provision, and no disclosure that may be filed. Further, General Laws c.268A, ss23(b)(3) prohibits municipal employees from participating in any matter that would create an appearance of impropriety or cause an impartial observer to believer that such actions are tainted with bias or favoritism. The stature also provides that it is unreasonable to conclude that an appearance of conflict exists “if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.” To the extent that there is a possibility that the Selectman’s spouse could be appointed as Town Administrator, in my opinion, the Selectman and the Board of Selectmen may wish to file individual disclosures with the Town Clerk setting forth the relevant facts. The disclosures filed by the other members of the Board of Selectmen would indicate that among the candidates for appointment is the spouse of a current member of the Board and that they will make a decision with regard to appointment of a Town Administrator based upon the merits of the particular candidate and not upon their relationship with the Selectman or her spouse.
This email does not address the types of conflicts that the Selectman’s spouse would need to be aware of if he were appointed as Town Administrator. However there would be several sections of the Conflict of Interest Law that would require review, including G.L. c.238A, ss19 and 23.
Pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c.268A, ss22, a municipal employee may seek an opinion from Town Counsel as to whether she has a conflict of interest under the provisions of G.L. c.268A. The response to the request is filed with the Town Clerk and the State Ethics Commission, and the State Ethics Commission then has 30 days to comment thereon. If no such response is sent by the Commission within 30 days of receipt of the opinion, Town Counsel’s opinion will be binding upon the Commsion to the extent and in the manner stated in 930 CMR 1.03(2). This letter does not constitute a letter under G.L. c.268A, ss22 or the cited regulations, as it would require that the Selectman request the same.
Please contact me with any further questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
101 Arch St., 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
I responded by questioning the opinion to which this individual referred, as I had no knowledge such existed. I requested a copy for the review, which is hosted in the right sidebar. I cannot attest as to who is responsible for the comments or the underlining evident in the document.
As the document (posted to the right) is a third generation copy, its quality is less than ideal, thus I have transcribed it below in its entirety, as sent to me. Here then is the opinion:
Monday, September 07, 2009 5:57:23 PM
From: Lauren F. Goldberg
Subject:
To: Mike Racicot
Cc: Joel Bard
Mike,
You have requested an opinion regarding the application of the Conflict of Interest Law to the possible appointment by the Board of Selectmen of the spouse of a current member of the Board (“Selectmen”) to the position of Town Administrator.
In my opinion, since the Board of Selectmen is the appointing authority for the Town Administrator, the particular matter of the appointment of the Town Administrator will create a conflict for the Selectman pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c268A ss19. In my further opinion, if the Selectman’s spouse were to be appointed by the other members of the Board, G.L. c268A ss 19, will prohibit the Selectman from participation in any decisions regarding the level of performance, salary or adjustments thereto, and/or the day-to-day active supervision of her spouse. In my further opinion, the Selectman, and the other members of the Board of Selectmen may wish to file a disclosure with the Town Clerk pursuant to G.L. c268A ss 23(b)(3) to dispel any appearance that they are acting on the basis of bias of favoritism.
Elected members of the Board of Selectmen are considered “municipal employees” for the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Law, G.L. c268A, and are subject to the prohibitions and restrictions of the Conflict of Interest Law. General Laws c268A ss 19, prohibits any municipal employee from participating in any particular matter in which a member of his immediate family has a financial interest. “Immediate family” is defined as, “the employees and his spouse, and their parents, children, brothers and sisters.” The Conflict of Interest Law defines the term “participation” to include “approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise.” The State Ethics Commission explains further that the term “participation” includes “both formal and informal lobbying of colleagues, reviewing and discussing, giving advice and making recommendations, as well as deciding and voting on particular matters,” EC-COI-98-4. The Conflict of Interest Law does not define the term “financial interest” however; the State Ethics Commission “has a long-standing practice of interpreting the phrase as meaning a financial interest of any size, either positive or negative, as long as it is direct and immediate or reasonably foreseeable. The term financial interest does not include financial interests that are “remote, speculative, or not sufficiently identifiable”. See EC-COI-02-2.
Thus, where the Selectman’s spouse seeks appointment to the position of Town Administrator, the provisions of G.L. c268A ss 19, prohibit the Selectman from participation in any way in the appointment process for Town Administrator. This would include, in my opinion, sitting at the table as a member of the Board of Selectmen while the Board discusses any of the candidates for appointment or the process for interviewing, comparing, and ultimately selecting a candidate; interviews and evaluates candidates, or takes any other action concerning the appointment of a Town Administrator.
In my further opinion, however, the provisions of G.L. c268A ss 19 would continue to be implicated of the Board of Selectmen were to appoint the Selectman’s spouse as Town Administrator. As you are aware, the Board of Selectmen, as the appointing authority, supervises the Town Administrator with regard to matters including performance and salary reviews and other personnel-related issues. The State Ethics Commission has concluded that day-to-day supervision of a member of an employee’s immediate family is prohibited, since ultimately hiring, firing and compensation decisions are made as a result of “cumulative impressions” based on day-to-day performance. The State Ethics Commission has concluded further that a supervisor may not avoid a violation of G.L. c268A ss 19, by delegating such duties to a subordinate. In this case, therefore, the Selectman would be obligated to abstain from exercising supervisory authority over her spouse. Of course, the remainder of the Board of Selectmen could continue to supervise the Selectman’s spouse. The Selectman’s abstention from participation will, in my opinion, satisfy the State Ethics Commissions’ concerns regarding “delegation” of authority. Be reminded, however, that for the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Law, “participate” is defined broadly. Thus, if a particular matter were to come before the Board of Selectmen implicating the Selectman’s spouse’s financial interests (i.e., a complaint concerning the Town Administrator or a request for a raise), the Selectman must recuse herself from participation in the matter by stepping down from the table at which the Board is sitting, and/or leaving the room during such discussions.
In my further opinion, the provisions of G.L. c268 ss23(), merit consideration. General Laws c268, ss23(b)(2) provides that no current municipal employee shall knowingly, or with reason to know, “use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to the similarly situated individuals”. There is no exemption from this provision, and no disclosure that may be filed. Further, General Laws c.268A, ss23(b)(3) prohibits municipal employees from participating in any matter that would create an appearance of impropriety or cause an impartial observer to believer that such actions are tainted with bias or favoritism. The stature also provides that it is unreasonable to conclude that an appearance of conflict exists “if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.” To the extent that there is a possibility that the Selectman’s spouse could be appointed as Town Administrator, in my opinion, the Selectman and the Board of Selectmen may wish to file individual disclosures with the Town Clerk setting forth the relevant facts. The disclosures filed by the other members of the Board of Selectmen would indicate that among the candidates for appointment is the spouse of a current member of the Board and that they will make a decision with regard to appointment of a Town Administrator based upon the merits of the particular candidate and not upon their relationship with the Selectman or her spouse.
This email does not address the types of conflicts that the Selectman’s spouse would need to be aware of if he were appointed as Town Administrator. However there would be several sections of the Conflict of Interest Law that would require review, including G.L. c.238A, ss19 and 23.
Pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c.268A, ss22, a municipal employee may seek an opinion from Town Counsel as to whether she has a conflict of interest under the provisions of G.L. c.268A. The response to the request is filed with the Town Clerk and the State Ethics Commission, and the State Ethics Commission then has 30 days to comment thereon. If no such response is sent by the Commission within 30 days of receipt of the opinion, Town Counsel’s opinion will be binding upon the Commsion to the extent and in the manner stated in 930 CMR 1.03(2). This letter does not constitute a letter under G.L. c.268A, ss22 or the cited regulations, as it would require that the Selectman request the same.
Please contact me with any further questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
101 Arch St., 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
Friday, January 8, 2010
Conveniently Arguing Both Sides
Over the last eight months, one has, with all too much frequency, been witness to a deliberatory process by some officials based upon the practice of “Situational Convenience” as opposed to one grounded in the principle of “Argument Consistency”.
Situational Convenience allows an individual to deliberate issues before them based upon what it most convenient at the time in order to achieve or facilitate their personal proclivities. It affords one the luxury of taking contradictory and inconsistent positions at will, in direct response to the particular matter at hand. Argument Consistency, dictates a deliberatory process grounded in arguing positions consistently based upon principle, even when said principle is in opposition to one’s personal desires. It directs an individual to maintain consistency in approach and continuity of character so that all matters are deliberated with the highest level of intellectual honesty.
Undoubtedly, Situational Convenience provides immense freedom from the burdens associated with doing the principled thing, i.e. the right thing. As well, it spares one the need to become overly concerned with the details surrounding one’s position or those pesky reservations about bogging oneself down with the need to deliberate honestly and consistently.
Situational Convenience allows one the opportunity to argue for example, the extreme importance of obtaining Department Head input into the hiring of a new Town Administrator (T.A.) one week, then using said input to reject those finalists (for “unknown” reasons), while arguing their input as irrelevant several weeks later as it related to extending (in direct contradiction to the Town Charter) the term of our part-time/ interim Town Administrator.
Situational Convenience provides one the luxury of dismissing the sanctity of the Charter and characterizing that which is obviously clear and convincing language as merely “suggestive”, in one breath, while earlier conveying to the Building Inspector that the sign by-laws are “very clear” and “need to be enforced” with the next breath. For the record, the Town Charter, Zoning Bylaws, and General Bylaws all use the very same language, in the very same format, and provide the very same unequivocal strength of mandate.
The advantage of Situational Convenience is that it allows an individual to argue on the one hand that “we should always follow Town Counsels opinion whether we agree with it or not” (B.O.S. Chairwoman - Monday, January 4, 2010), while earlier arguing against Town Counsel’s opinion when said opinion suggested that the Chairwoman should leave the room during discussions pertaining to the appointment of a second Search Committee. During a meeting held Thursday, September 24, 2009, Chairman Blanchard challenged Town Counsels opinion that she should have no physical presence in the room during the committee appointment discussions and acquiesced only after considerable debate and a personal request from the B.O.S. vice-Chairman. In response to his request some 5 minutes into the discussion, Mrs. Blanchard replied, “Well Scott, seeing as your requesting that, I’ll abide by your request”. Her decision to comply with the request of myself and the vice-Chair had nothing to do with “following Town Counsel’s opinion”.
Situational Convenience as well, allows one the flexibility to be arbitrary and capricious in the execution of authority. For example, one can choose to extend a 200 gallon per day sewer request to a well known individual in August, while arguing against a similar request in December from one who is lesser known; this despite the situations being identical. To be clear, I voted for the request in August and would do it again today. I was quite prepared to support the December request were it brought to a vote. Simply stated there was no concrete rationale not to support these requests.
Perhaps one of the most beneficial aspects of Situational Convenience is that allows one to make countless campaign promises when seeking votes that become summarily jettisoned once the oath of office has been taken. Situational Convenience allows one to state that “Providing leadership as a selectman requires an open mind and a willingness to listen. I firmly believe that the town deserves an open board that is accessible to everyone” while simultaneously demonstrating the reverse. Equally, Situational Convenience allows one to state that they “will be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” while practicing to the contrary.
There is nothing magical or special in terms of the Argument Consistency approach to reasoning, nor is it in any way remarkable; it is simply based upon good old fashioned honesty. I grew up in the projects (Great Brook Valley) and low-income districts in Worcester - Kilby Street and Gardner Streets. We had little, but my dad believed that regardless of what you did or did not have, you were certainly wealthy if you had integrity. I pray each day that I shall (as used in the mandatory) remain faithful to this approach engendered to me by my dad; a WW II marine veteran with an eighth-grade education. He was unmistakably, the smartest man I have ever known. He died 21 years ago at the age of 70. I endeavor always to honor his life with integrity.
In closing, I am obligated to share the following. During the two years prior to my January 2009 entry into the political arena, I strongly advocated against the politics of special-interest determinations and what I viewed as selective representation. I argued against what I believed to be “Situationally Convenient” deliberations by the Board at that time. I was quick to point out what I viewed as inconsistencies in their approach and the lack of balance. Though I still disagree with many of their positions taken at that time, I must admit that those inconsistencies were minor in magnitude in comparison to what is now taking place.
In support of what I believed was much needed change, I provided sustenance through blog postings, research, and letters to the editor for some who now themselves engage in acts that are, in my estimation, more egregious than any previously witnessed. Said postings, research, and letters were always factually based, honestly developed, and objectively vetted, though not void of my opinion either. Sadly however, the last eight months have resulted for me, in a rather telling evolution; such being that the selective self-interest governance I was so concerned with prior to January 2009, now appears so relatively minor and pale in comparison to those things I’ve witnessed as of late. In hindsight, things then may not have been so bad after all when taken on the whole in contrast to this era.
There’s an old saying about such things, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it”.
Situational Convenience allows an individual to deliberate issues before them based upon what it most convenient at the time in order to achieve or facilitate their personal proclivities. It affords one the luxury of taking contradictory and inconsistent positions at will, in direct response to the particular matter at hand. Argument Consistency, dictates a deliberatory process grounded in arguing positions consistently based upon principle, even when said principle is in opposition to one’s personal desires. It directs an individual to maintain consistency in approach and continuity of character so that all matters are deliberated with the highest level of intellectual honesty.
Undoubtedly, Situational Convenience provides immense freedom from the burdens associated with doing the principled thing, i.e. the right thing. As well, it spares one the need to become overly concerned with the details surrounding one’s position or those pesky reservations about bogging oneself down with the need to deliberate honestly and consistently.
Situational Convenience allows one the opportunity to argue for example, the extreme importance of obtaining Department Head input into the hiring of a new Town Administrator (T.A.) one week, then using said input to reject those finalists (for “unknown” reasons), while arguing their input as irrelevant several weeks later as it related to extending (in direct contradiction to the Town Charter) the term of our part-time/ interim Town Administrator.
Situational Convenience provides one the luxury of dismissing the sanctity of the Charter and characterizing that which is obviously clear and convincing language as merely “suggestive”, in one breath, while earlier conveying to the Building Inspector that the sign by-laws are “very clear” and “need to be enforced” with the next breath. For the record, the Town Charter, Zoning Bylaws, and General Bylaws all use the very same language, in the very same format, and provide the very same unequivocal strength of mandate.
The advantage of Situational Convenience is that it allows an individual to argue on the one hand that “we should always follow Town Counsels opinion whether we agree with it or not” (B.O.S. Chairwoman - Monday, January 4, 2010), while earlier arguing against Town Counsel’s opinion when said opinion suggested that the Chairwoman should leave the room during discussions pertaining to the appointment of a second Search Committee. During a meeting held Thursday, September 24, 2009, Chairman Blanchard challenged Town Counsels opinion that she should have no physical presence in the room during the committee appointment discussions and acquiesced only after considerable debate and a personal request from the B.O.S. vice-Chairman. In response to his request some 5 minutes into the discussion, Mrs. Blanchard replied, “Well Scott, seeing as your requesting that, I’ll abide by your request”. Her decision to comply with the request of myself and the vice-Chair had nothing to do with “following Town Counsel’s opinion”.
Situational Convenience as well, allows one the flexibility to be arbitrary and capricious in the execution of authority. For example, one can choose to extend a 200 gallon per day sewer request to a well known individual in August, while arguing against a similar request in December from one who is lesser known; this despite the situations being identical. To be clear, I voted for the request in August and would do it again today. I was quite prepared to support the December request were it brought to a vote. Simply stated there was no concrete rationale not to support these requests.
Perhaps one of the most beneficial aspects of Situational Convenience is that allows one to make countless campaign promises when seeking votes that become summarily jettisoned once the oath of office has been taken. Situational Convenience allows one to state that “Providing leadership as a selectman requires an open mind and a willingness to listen. I firmly believe that the town deserves an open board that is accessible to everyone” while simultaneously demonstrating the reverse. Equally, Situational Convenience allows one to state that they “will be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” while practicing to the contrary.
There is nothing magical or special in terms of the Argument Consistency approach to reasoning, nor is it in any way remarkable; it is simply based upon good old fashioned honesty. I grew up in the projects (Great Brook Valley) and low-income districts in Worcester - Kilby Street and Gardner Streets. We had little, but my dad believed that regardless of what you did or did not have, you were certainly wealthy if you had integrity. I pray each day that I shall (as used in the mandatory) remain faithful to this approach engendered to me by my dad; a WW II marine veteran with an eighth-grade education. He was unmistakably, the smartest man I have ever known. He died 21 years ago at the age of 70. I endeavor always to honor his life with integrity.
In closing, I am obligated to share the following. During the two years prior to my January 2009 entry into the political arena, I strongly advocated against the politics of special-interest determinations and what I viewed as selective representation. I argued against what I believed to be “Situationally Convenient” deliberations by the Board at that time. I was quick to point out what I viewed as inconsistencies in their approach and the lack of balance. Though I still disagree with many of their positions taken at that time, I must admit that those inconsistencies were minor in magnitude in comparison to what is now taking place.
In support of what I believed was much needed change, I provided sustenance through blog postings, research, and letters to the editor for some who now themselves engage in acts that are, in my estimation, more egregious than any previously witnessed. Said postings, research, and letters were always factually based, honestly developed, and objectively vetted, though not void of my opinion either. Sadly however, the last eight months have resulted for me, in a rather telling evolution; such being that the selective self-interest governance I was so concerned with prior to January 2009, now appears so relatively minor and pale in comparison to those things I’ve witnessed as of late. In hindsight, things then may not have been so bad after all when taken on the whole in contrast to this era.
There’s an old saying about such things, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it”.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Dismayed, Disappointed, But Ever More Determined
As we embark upon a new year, one accompanied with fresh opportunities, hopes, and dreams, there is pause to reflect upon the aspirations, expectations and prospects of a year now gone. Certainly for me, the past year has witnessed its share of excitement, expectation, and exuberance. As well, it has offered its share of dismay, disappointment, and disbelief.
The past year has proven to be an "eye-opening" experience that all too frequently has been witness to a one-dimensional, self-serving, and dishonest approach as it relates to important issues facing this community. During this period, I have gained deeper insights into not only the people, but the process of local governance. Suffice to say, I have encountered my share of disillusionment with this process, but equally so, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the importance of balance and moderation. During this period I have gained a deeper appreciation for the efforts of our Community Preservation Committee (CPC), the Conservation Commission (ConCom), the Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC), the Recreation Committee, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Each of these entities is crucial to the prosperity and protection of our community.
The year started with high hopes for me as two freshman selectmen were closing in on their first complete year and one had dreams of significant progress with their increasing experience and comfort level. Equally so however, doubts lingered and I decided to enter the race for selectman as a means of spiriting dialogue on important issues facing this community. With low expectations of earning a seat on the Board, but grateful for the opportunity to engage residents during my door-to-door campaign, I was no doubt exuberant when the final results came in.
That exuberance would guide my approach in terms of fulfilling campaign promises grounded in objective, principled, and accountable representation. Those pledges included the establishment of a coalition of business owners, government representatives, and residents in an effort to address the economic challenges facing our community. This alliance gave birth to the Merchants of Sturbridge, whose efforts have been well documented, requiring no redundancy here.
As well, there was significant progress made in terms of public access to information as each of the Charter designated boards/committees previously not offering on-line access to meeting minutes, has now implemented protocols to do so. We are grateful for their efforts. Equally so, the issues surrounding telecommunications service in Sturbridge - though previously relegated to little more than lip service - have been addressed frankly, directly, and comprehensively. There has been a significant push in terms of prioritizing this issue that has been chronicled here. One is cautiously optimistic that significant progress is unfolding and those efforts will soon bear fruit. To that end, we should be most grateful for the efforts of those members serving on the Cable Advisory Committee, in particular Jean Bubon, Mary Afable, and Al Jones.
There has also been progress in terms of the Town’s overall approach to management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center. Increased cooperation among several members of the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) has resulted in better communication and collaboration with the Board of Health (B.O.H.). To that end, new initiatives currently being developed by the B.O.H. (including green proposals), will be soon forthcoming and there is little doubt that these initiatives will increase the efficiency of the Landfill/Recycling Center. One is grateful for the efforts of these elected health officials and their appointees.
The success of the Burgess School renovation proposal manifested as a result not of any efforts undertaken by the B.O.S., but rather in direct proportion to the outstanding labors undertaken by the members of the Burgess School Building Committee. They are to be congratulated, as they bear the rightful ownership of the success associated with this project.
In terms of the Town’s sewer service area, we have initiated discussions and have undertaken preliminary efforts towards identifying weaknesses in the current plan, most notably the lack of infrastructure on Route 15. One is hopeful that we will accomplish something substantial in the near future. To that end, one is grateful for the efforts of Selectman Ted Goodwin and his willingness to engage in an "alternate models approach". As well, Selectman Scott Garieri has provided support in terms of problem-solving this issue. This collaborative effort will no doubt result in a more pragmatic and progressive solution to some of the issues inherent with the current service area. The challenge before us now is refocusing our efforts, which for too long have been needlessly distracted elsewhere due to a Board member's personal proclivities.
There is still work to be done in terms of senior services and additional efforts are forthcoming. So too, I believe we need to develop a more practical user-friendly approach as it relates to the immediacy of resident access to pending budget requests. This will provide taxpayers with the ability to assess the tax impact of proposed requests in terms of their aggregate effect, as opposed to the more historical approach that tends to view such somewhat in isolation.
Certainly, over the last six months our focus has been by need, redirected to the appointment of a new Town Administrator (T.A.). The departure of our former T.A. has created a void requiring attention. Sadly however, there remains little doubt that a strong argument could be offered to suggest that this relatively straightforward process (or so one would think) has been plagued with missteps, misdirection, misinformation, and misrepresentation.
The self indulging approach undertaken by the B.O.S. Chair in personally voicing her opposition to individual Search Committee members relative to their established qualifications, coupled with her questionable participation in the committee selection process, as well as her involvement in discussions surrounding a complaint submitted to the B.O.S. by her husband, leave little doubt in my mind of her inability to objectively and fairly execute her duties. These actions and others chronicled here have resulted in a significant level of personal disappointment in terms of the high regard I previously held for this individual.
Adding to this disappointment, is the dismay experienced as a result of the attempts by Chairman Blanchard and our part-time T.A. to subordinate and usurp the very constitution of our community - the Sturbridge Town Charter. The first attempt dealt with an effort to wrestle control of Board of Health (B.O.H.) personnel away from their appointing authority, that being, the Board of Health. Basing their argument upon a favorable legal “opinion” from Town Counsel, which was squarely in opposition to the Town Charter, Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot sought B.O.S. support for this incursion into the sovereignty of the Board of Health. Their efforts were rejected by a majority of selectmen. Those efforts have been previously chronicled here.
This of course was followed by a second activist interpretation of the Town Charter by Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot (buttressed by another favorable legal “opinion”), seeking the extension of our agreement with the part-time/interim T.A.; this despite clear and convincing Charter language to the contrary. This effort proved successful as three members of the Board of Selectmen voted to support what amounts to a weakening of our constitution. Further information on this subject can be accessed here.
Though this issue is now behind us and one is resolved to live with the outcome, (that is after all, the role of democracy), it is wise to bear in mind that the occurrence of a single successful encroachment upon the documents held sacred relative to our town governance, will most assuredly lead to others. The gates have been opened and this should stir concern in all of us for despite one’s position in terms of this particular issue, there will undoubtedly come other excursions involving interpretist activism regarding the Charter. When such occurs, individuals may side differently on the particular issue in question, arguing vigorously in defense of the sanctity of our Charter. Sadly, the horse has now left the stable and reining him back will prove a very difficult endeavor. Such after all, is the nature of horses.
There was as well, a significant level of disbelief in terms of the misrepresentative statements made by at least 2 members of the B.O.S. One such case involved the most egregious of human failings, that being the bearing of false witness against a human being, as exemplified by one member of the B.O.S. It is one thing (though certainly wrong) for an individual to misstate the truth, as this particular individual has on several occasions; it is another entirely for that same individual to bear false witness. There is in my view, no greater sin than to bear false witness against a fellow human being. To specifically state that someone has done something, which one knows not to be true is the worst character defect an individual can harbor. To experience such was no doubt the lowest point of my year. I am still at a loss to understand the motivation of this particular colleague, chronicled here. The character failings of this individual were to say the least, disheartening. Yet, one is reminded that there is little benefit in dwelling on such things. Though our relationship has sustained irreversible damage, the need to work in a cooperative manner is vital to this community's success; thus, it is necessary to move on.
Equally troubling have been the misstatements – i.e. multiple broken promises of an individual once highly regarded by me. Pledging to “be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” our chairman has (in my view), been anything but. Instead It is my firm believe that she has misused her position to better situate herself in a manner most influential and beneficial to her personal proclivities. This of course, with one goal in mind. As well Madam Chair has regularly endeavored to silence dissenting opinions based upon relevant, factual, and scientific information that directly challenges the legitimacy, or lack thereof, as it relates to positions she supports.
During her campaign in 2008, this same individual spoke of the need to “work together to end the divisiveness in town government that has developed over the past three years” prior to her election. Instead she has created more divisiveness by abandoning all reason in her efforts to influence the outcome of the T.A. search. As well, her attempts to usurp the Town Charter on multiple occasions have done little if anything to foster cooperation with other town entities and indeed everything to challenge it.
Her promise to “establish a partnership with the business community to develop a strategy that will help ensure [their ability] to remain and prosper in Sturbridge thereby increasing our tax base” proved to be nothing more than hollow words. The business partnership now existent within the community (established May – 2009 boasting over 100 members), was so undertaken and created void of any assistance on her part. To be sure however, other elected and appointed representatives have stepped up and provided a great deal of assistance and support. In the years ahead these partnerships will become ever more important and valuable.
Candidate Blanchard promised to “implement the long-delayed third DPW crew to improve the productivity and efficiency of that department”. To date, and certainly during my eight month tenure, this issue has yet to be raised a single time. To be clear, I am not suggesting one way or the other whether the merits of this promise; I’m merely stating the subject has failed to find its way onto our agenda. It is illogical to assume that an issue never discussed can become part of any deliberative process.
Then candidate Blanchard pledged as well to “move [the community] forward and deal with the important issues we face”, committing to “provide the leadership to accomplish this”. One might well suggest that our community is on a treadmill, feverishly running in place while the “important issues” facing us are tendered little more than lip service. We are a listing ship taking on water. This of course, due to the needless and all too frequent misdirection of our energy elsewhere.
As 2010 beckons, we are reminded that the campaign season will soon officially begin. The commencement of such will afford opportunity; said opportunity will thus provide choices and additional promises to be contemplated. Careful consideration and deliberation will no doubt be important as we weigh the importance of integrity and character.
For me certainly, there have been missteps as well. During my first month on the Board, while considering the reappointment of committee members, I refused to support a reappointment to the Conservation Commission (ConCom). Some suggested my position was personal due to the strained relationship existing between myself and the appointee; I can assure you that such was not the case. I firmly believed that a change was necessary on the ConCom.
Nevertheless, it was in hindsight, an appointment I should have remained silent on as it was simply too soon in my tenure to consider preventing a long-standing appointment. Equally noteworthy, too little time (16 months) had separated the strain between us and regardless of any genuine intentions, there existed doubt in the minds of some. The decision to engage this issue was clearly a misstep for me. With all sincerity, I can say with certainty that I am pleased the outcome was different from that which I supported during that period. The breath of experience this individual brings to the ConCom is essential.
There is little doubt that I have learned a great deal this past year; some good, some otherwise. All however, very useful. I will continue to execute my responsibilities on behalf of residents with vigor, grounded in the philosophy of principles before personalities. The execution of my duties shall remain always, based upon, integrity, objectivity, balance, and accountability.
To be certain, despite the disappointments, dismay, and disillusionment, I am ever more determined to maintain my commitment to honest governance. Equally, I will continue to deliberate in a thoughtful, educated, informed, and self-less manner, ensuring always that my decisions are based upon intellectual deliberation and discovery, not self-aggrandizing emotions.
The past year has proven to be an "eye-opening" experience that all too frequently has been witness to a one-dimensional, self-serving, and dishonest approach as it relates to important issues facing this community. During this period, I have gained deeper insights into not only the people, but the process of local governance. Suffice to say, I have encountered my share of disillusionment with this process, but equally so, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the importance of balance and moderation. During this period I have gained a deeper appreciation for the efforts of our Community Preservation Committee (CPC), the Conservation Commission (ConCom), the Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC), the Recreation Committee, and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Each of these entities is crucial to the prosperity and protection of our community.
The year started with high hopes for me as two freshman selectmen were closing in on their first complete year and one had dreams of significant progress with their increasing experience and comfort level. Equally so however, doubts lingered and I decided to enter the race for selectman as a means of spiriting dialogue on important issues facing this community. With low expectations of earning a seat on the Board, but grateful for the opportunity to engage residents during my door-to-door campaign, I was no doubt exuberant when the final results came in.
That exuberance would guide my approach in terms of fulfilling campaign promises grounded in objective, principled, and accountable representation. Those pledges included the establishment of a coalition of business owners, government representatives, and residents in an effort to address the economic challenges facing our community. This alliance gave birth to the Merchants of Sturbridge, whose efforts have been well documented, requiring no redundancy here.
As well, there was significant progress made in terms of public access to information as each of the Charter designated boards/committees previously not offering on-line access to meeting minutes, has now implemented protocols to do so. We are grateful for their efforts. Equally so, the issues surrounding telecommunications service in Sturbridge - though previously relegated to little more than lip service - have been addressed frankly, directly, and comprehensively. There has been a significant push in terms of prioritizing this issue that has been chronicled here. One is cautiously optimistic that significant progress is unfolding and those efforts will soon bear fruit. To that end, we should be most grateful for the efforts of those members serving on the Cable Advisory Committee, in particular Jean Bubon, Mary Afable, and Al Jones.
There has also been progress in terms of the Town’s overall approach to management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center. Increased cooperation among several members of the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) has resulted in better communication and collaboration with the Board of Health (B.O.H.). To that end, new initiatives currently being developed by the B.O.H. (including green proposals), will be soon forthcoming and there is little doubt that these initiatives will increase the efficiency of the Landfill/Recycling Center. One is grateful for the efforts of these elected health officials and their appointees.
The success of the Burgess School renovation proposal manifested as a result not of any efforts undertaken by the B.O.S., but rather in direct proportion to the outstanding labors undertaken by the members of the Burgess School Building Committee. They are to be congratulated, as they bear the rightful ownership of the success associated with this project.
In terms of the Town’s sewer service area, we have initiated discussions and have undertaken preliminary efforts towards identifying weaknesses in the current plan, most notably the lack of infrastructure on Route 15. One is hopeful that we will accomplish something substantial in the near future. To that end, one is grateful for the efforts of Selectman Ted Goodwin and his willingness to engage in an "alternate models approach". As well, Selectman Scott Garieri has provided support in terms of problem-solving this issue. This collaborative effort will no doubt result in a more pragmatic and progressive solution to some of the issues inherent with the current service area. The challenge before us now is refocusing our efforts, which for too long have been needlessly distracted elsewhere due to a Board member's personal proclivities.
There is still work to be done in terms of senior services and additional efforts are forthcoming. So too, I believe we need to develop a more practical user-friendly approach as it relates to the immediacy of resident access to pending budget requests. This will provide taxpayers with the ability to assess the tax impact of proposed requests in terms of their aggregate effect, as opposed to the more historical approach that tends to view such somewhat in isolation.
Certainly, over the last six months our focus has been by need, redirected to the appointment of a new Town Administrator (T.A.). The departure of our former T.A. has created a void requiring attention. Sadly however, there remains little doubt that a strong argument could be offered to suggest that this relatively straightforward process (or so one would think) has been plagued with missteps, misdirection, misinformation, and misrepresentation.
The self indulging approach undertaken by the B.O.S. Chair in personally voicing her opposition to individual Search Committee members relative to their established qualifications, coupled with her questionable participation in the committee selection process, as well as her involvement in discussions surrounding a complaint submitted to the B.O.S. by her husband, leave little doubt in my mind of her inability to objectively and fairly execute her duties. These actions and others chronicled here have resulted in a significant level of personal disappointment in terms of the high regard I previously held for this individual.
Adding to this disappointment, is the dismay experienced as a result of the attempts by Chairman Blanchard and our part-time T.A. to subordinate and usurp the very constitution of our community - the Sturbridge Town Charter. The first attempt dealt with an effort to wrestle control of Board of Health (B.O.H.) personnel away from their appointing authority, that being, the Board of Health. Basing their argument upon a favorable legal “opinion” from Town Counsel, which was squarely in opposition to the Town Charter, Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot sought B.O.S. support for this incursion into the sovereignty of the Board of Health. Their efforts were rejected by a majority of selectmen. Those efforts have been previously chronicled here.
This of course was followed by a second activist interpretation of the Town Charter by Mrs. Blanchard and Mr. Racicot (buttressed by another favorable legal “opinion”), seeking the extension of our agreement with the part-time/interim T.A.; this despite clear and convincing Charter language to the contrary. This effort proved successful as three members of the Board of Selectmen voted to support what amounts to a weakening of our constitution. Further information on this subject can be accessed here.
Though this issue is now behind us and one is resolved to live with the outcome, (that is after all, the role of democracy), it is wise to bear in mind that the occurrence of a single successful encroachment upon the documents held sacred relative to our town governance, will most assuredly lead to others. The gates have been opened and this should stir concern in all of us for despite one’s position in terms of this particular issue, there will undoubtedly come other excursions involving interpretist activism regarding the Charter. When such occurs, individuals may side differently on the particular issue in question, arguing vigorously in defense of the sanctity of our Charter. Sadly, the horse has now left the stable and reining him back will prove a very difficult endeavor. Such after all, is the nature of horses.
There was as well, a significant level of disbelief in terms of the misrepresentative statements made by at least 2 members of the B.O.S. One such case involved the most egregious of human failings, that being the bearing of false witness against a human being, as exemplified by one member of the B.O.S. It is one thing (though certainly wrong) for an individual to misstate the truth, as this particular individual has on several occasions; it is another entirely for that same individual to bear false witness. There is in my view, no greater sin than to bear false witness against a fellow human being. To specifically state that someone has done something, which one knows not to be true is the worst character defect an individual can harbor. To experience such was no doubt the lowest point of my year. I am still at a loss to understand the motivation of this particular colleague, chronicled here. The character failings of this individual were to say the least, disheartening. Yet, one is reminded that there is little benefit in dwelling on such things. Though our relationship has sustained irreversible damage, the need to work in a cooperative manner is vital to this community's success; thus, it is necessary to move on.
Equally troubling have been the misstatements – i.e. multiple broken promises of an individual once highly regarded by me. Pledging to “be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” our chairman has (in my view), been anything but. Instead It is my firm believe that she has misused her position to better situate herself in a manner most influential and beneficial to her personal proclivities. This of course, with one goal in mind. As well Madam Chair has regularly endeavored to silence dissenting opinions based upon relevant, factual, and scientific information that directly challenges the legitimacy, or lack thereof, as it relates to positions she supports.
During her campaign in 2008, this same individual spoke of the need to “work together to end the divisiveness in town government that has developed over the past three years” prior to her election. Instead she has created more divisiveness by abandoning all reason in her efforts to influence the outcome of the T.A. search. As well, her attempts to usurp the Town Charter on multiple occasions have done little if anything to foster cooperation with other town entities and indeed everything to challenge it.
Her promise to “establish a partnership with the business community to develop a strategy that will help ensure [their ability] to remain and prosper in Sturbridge thereby increasing our tax base” proved to be nothing more than hollow words. The business partnership now existent within the community (established May – 2009 boasting over 100 members), was so undertaken and created void of any assistance on her part. To be sure however, other elected and appointed representatives have stepped up and provided a great deal of assistance and support. In the years ahead these partnerships will become ever more important and valuable.
Candidate Blanchard promised to “implement the long-delayed third DPW crew to improve the productivity and efficiency of that department”. To date, and certainly during my eight month tenure, this issue has yet to be raised a single time. To be clear, I am not suggesting one way or the other whether the merits of this promise; I’m merely stating the subject has failed to find its way onto our agenda. It is illogical to assume that an issue never discussed can become part of any deliberative process.
Then candidate Blanchard pledged as well to “move [the community] forward and deal with the important issues we face”, committing to “provide the leadership to accomplish this”. One might well suggest that our community is on a treadmill, feverishly running in place while the “important issues” facing us are tendered little more than lip service. We are a listing ship taking on water. This of course, due to the needless and all too frequent misdirection of our energy elsewhere.
As 2010 beckons, we are reminded that the campaign season will soon officially begin. The commencement of such will afford opportunity; said opportunity will thus provide choices and additional promises to be contemplated. Careful consideration and deliberation will no doubt be important as we weigh the importance of integrity and character.
For me certainly, there have been missteps as well. During my first month on the Board, while considering the reappointment of committee members, I refused to support a reappointment to the Conservation Commission (ConCom). Some suggested my position was personal due to the strained relationship existing between myself and the appointee; I can assure you that such was not the case. I firmly believed that a change was necessary on the ConCom.
Nevertheless, it was in hindsight, an appointment I should have remained silent on as it was simply too soon in my tenure to consider preventing a long-standing appointment. Equally noteworthy, too little time (16 months) had separated the strain between us and regardless of any genuine intentions, there existed doubt in the minds of some. The decision to engage this issue was clearly a misstep for me. With all sincerity, I can say with certainty that I am pleased the outcome was different from that which I supported during that period. The breath of experience this individual brings to the ConCom is essential.
There is little doubt that I have learned a great deal this past year; some good, some otherwise. All however, very useful. I will continue to execute my responsibilities on behalf of residents with vigor, grounded in the philosophy of principles before personalities. The execution of my duties shall remain always, based upon, integrity, objectivity, balance, and accountability.
To be certain, despite the disappointments, dismay, and disillusionment, I am ever more determined to maintain my commitment to honest governance. Equally, I will continue to deliberate in a thoughtful, educated, informed, and self-less manner, ensuring always that my decisions are based upon intellectual deliberation and discovery, not self-aggrandizing emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)