Decisions, Decisions.

I finally watched Monday's selectmen's meeting.  I have got to tell you, some of the stuff that goes on is, well amazing.  

Four weeks after the release of the DOR report and we are at the point were it has been agreed that at the next selectmen's meeting a schedule will be established for working sessions and meetings with department heads.  A very aggressive strategy.  

For weeks after the DOR report and we will be putting together a job description for the position of treasurer and ????.  

But it does seem there has been some work done as far a developing a procedure manual for the Board of Selectmen.  

The real "WOW" factor had to do with the procurement law.  If you aren't aware of it, the selectmen last June I believe issued an edict stating that all purchases exceeding $1,500.00 had to be approved by the ton's Chief Procurement Officer.  

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for following the law and setting standards that have to be adhered to.  We can certainly debate whether the stricter town standard of $1,500.00 should be applicable, just as we can certainly argue about whether we actually have a functional procurement policy in place.  And I would certainly be willing to go toe to toe over the stated reasoning as to why we adopted $1,500.00 as the amount, essentially because that is what surrounding communities are doing.

I have my own thoughts about the underlying reasoning behind the edict, but those are for another day.

As to the procurement policy and law, well my institutional memory may be off on this one, however I seem to recall a number of years ago town meeting being asked to impose stricter standards and then several years later being asked to revoke those standards.  I need to find the time to review the Annual Reports, and it may be it was dealt wit otherwise, but I do recall actually having the limits raised.

Anyway, the most interesting part about being involved in a discussion regarding the procurement law is the fact that is gets completely butchered during the discussion.  Everyone knows it exists, and very, very few people know what is actually in it.

Take for example the discussion about the van for the ACO.  At the very end it was noted the same was going to be paid from the gift account.  Someone left money in their will.  At no point did anyone note that c. 31B, Sec. 1(b)(20) exempts a purchase funded by proceeds derived from a gift to the governmental body from the provisions of the procurement law.

In practice is it best to still follow the law, yes.  But it is also good to know the law too.  It is even better not spending 5 minutes of time lamenting how there has not been compliance with it.  

Then there was the bit on the school department notice relative to the selectmen edict.  There are a few exemptions to the law directly applicable to schools by the way.

What it comes down to is first, whether the selectmen have the authority to impose, on their own, any more restrictive requirements then the law.  I know Town Meeting can.  I cannot find anything that says the selectmen can.  I am not going to get into a debate about an opinion from Town Counsel or the AG that hasn't happened yet.

My personal take, based on what I know, is that town charter/by-law control.  Since we don't have an actual charter, we would have to find something in a special act passed for us, and I don't know if there was one dealing with purchasing.  The by-law or more correctly town code does have a provision concerning a purchasing officer, Section 37-4.  

The problem with the code provision is it is so general in nature it is useless.

I seem to recall a similar dispute in another Massachusetts community, that reached the point where the selectmen took or threatened to take the school department to court.  It was in Stoughton I believe.  The long and the short of it is I don't remember the final outcome, although it does come to mind that the how and when certain town policies where adopted factored into the what could and could not be done.

My guess, absent something specific in a by-law, the selectmen cannot unilaterally change the limits except for those departments directly under their control. 

Maybe I have just become a bit too jaded in my old age, however I think there was more to this than just accounting.  The other point in this argument, if people aren't complying, doesn't it make more sense to deal with the offender than the policy?

It is also possible that I might be a bit heavy handed, but when you find out someone has violated the law, do something to the offender.  What action has been taken?  If there is a practice of failing to follow the law, what action has been taken?  You can create the same oversight at say $5,000.00 as for $1,500.00.  One has to ask, where was the oversight?

I have always found that knee jerk reactions usually do two things:  First you give yourself a sore knee; and, secondly, you create a whole slew of different issues and problems.

Believe it or not, there is an actual procurement manual that exists. Might help if some people actually read it.