Someone asked me about the interview process for the treasurer's position. I was asked whether the process was done in compliance with the "Open Meeting Law". I wasn't at the selectmen's meeting Monday night, I didn't watch the live video fee (no one did), and at least as of this morning, this is no tape on the video on demand site.
Therefore I cannot comment on what I did not see, nor anything I haven't read about. I will however note again there is a ready source of what can and cannot be done in executive session. You can go the the Attorney General's Open Meeting Guide for what I call the digest version, and also explore the other links available on the site for more detail.
As specifically concerns interviews The Open Meeting Guide in relevant part provides:
8. To consider or interview applicants for employment or appointment by a preliminary screening committee if the chair declares that an open meeting will have a detrimental effect in obtaining qualified applicants; provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to any meeting, including meetings of a preliminary screening committee, to consider and interview applicants who have passed a prior preliminary screening;
This Purpose permits a hiring subcommittee of a public body or a preliminary screening committee to conduct the initial screening process in executive session. This Purpose does not apply to any stage in the hiring process after the screening committee or subcommittee votes to recommend candidates to its parent body, however it may include multiple rounds of interviews by the screening committee aimed at narrowing the group of applicants down to finalists. At the time that the executive session is proposed and voted on, the chair must state on the record that having the discussion in an open session will be detrimental to the public body’s ability to attract qualified applicants for the position. If the public body opts to convene a preliminary screening committee, the committee must contain fewer than a quorum of the members of the parent public body. The committee may also contain members who are not members of the parent public body.
Note that a public body is not required to create a preliminary screening committee to consider or interview applicants. However, if the body chooses to conduct the review of applicants itself, it may not do so in executive session.
Seems pretty clear what can and cannot be done. Doesn't it?
Again, I haven't seen the meeting and I am not going to offer any opinion on it. At least at this point.
In general, the first line of defense in protecting the integrity of the process is and always will be the chair of any committee or board. The second is its members. The third should be the press at the meeting. Next comes the general public who may feel slighted or wronged. The line in the sand gets drawn by the Attorney General, and that will only happen if the proper complaint is made (and quite frankly the complaint procedure is just a tad tangled).
Nonetheless, if you have a gripe, you shouldn't depend on others to take care of it. Step up to the plate and take a swing. Nothing you feel should be changed will ever change unless you work for it.
Team work seems to be the "mantra" this season. Apparently there is actually a team forming. I need to find out where that sign up sheet is because it would be nice to feel part of a team in the big leagues.
Don't get me wrong, I am all ready on one. But if you want to use the "team" analogy, we have a bunch of minor league affiliates, the rosters of which are used only when convenient.
But hey that's why they have the big leagues and the minor leagues, right?
After yesterday I am more convinced than ever that the long term success of our Town depends on a strong town manager concept, and I am also more convinced than ever that it isn't going to happen come this May. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry.
One thing is for certain, come Town Meeting, we are going to see a test of true metal of everyone.
It is extremely easy, and convenient for some, to simply talk about what has to be done. It is an entirely different story to fight for it.
No more free rides. Everyone knows costs keep going up. Everyone knows revenues are finite. Everyone knows you have to either find new revenues or cut back on operations.
Tell us all exactly what you intend to do.
Here is one prediction that I can make right now. You aren't going to see a vote to cut the police budget by let's say $20,000.00, the fire budget by let's say $10,000.00, the highway budget by let's say $40,000.00, and the school budget by let's say $240,000.00 before the election.
If you do see votes, even serious discussion, well what can I say, I have told you I have a crack in my crystal ball.
Every candidate for school committee should be addressing the effect of such a cut. Every candidate for selectmen should be telling you right now whether they feel such cuts are warranted this year, and if so why. If not, why. But they should be telling you one way or the other (FYI the BPW is an uncontested race so would it really matter what the candidate said at this point).
We have a problem. I get it. We have had a problem for over 20 years. That in itself is part of the problem. The sky has been falling for so long that trying to get people to actually realize it is going to hit their heads at this point is near impossible. So is trying to sell them on cuts with no definitive long range plan other than to be conservative in spending.
The days of blind faith acceptance are gone. Indeed many of the reasons for such faith, if they ever truly existed, have evaporated.
Enough for today. More than enough. Be safe.
I don't know how many people will come flat out and say what they think, but as I'm not a candidate in a race, and I'm not beholden to a committee or department, I'll give my opinion about what would motivate me to support a department's budget request or not.
ReplyDeleteThe first consideration to cross my mind is how many people are most served by any department. Whether or not residents ever call the police or fire departments, the fact is that they are available to serve all of us 24/7. That piece of mind is virtually priceless.
Of course when my street is snowed in I want it plowed, but for most of the year, it doesn't cross my mind. So maybe I feel more inclined to support emergency personnel and the purchase rescue vehicles instead of plows. More people are served more often.
One thing I think should be looked at is benefit packages. If no one wants to divuldge their benefits, then maybe they can ask people in the private sector what's in theirs. I think in some cases it would be quite a shock. A 1% salary increase might not seem like much, but in conjunction with a decent benefits package, you might be getting a good deal.
Another thing I would consider before voting to support a budget request or not is, exactly 'how' is the money being used in the department. I believe people like to see where their money goes, even when they can't directly control it. Last year the school department cut middle school teaching positions due to budget constraints. That's understandable. Many people have had to make personal adjustments in their homes due to the economy. But I question the decision of the school department to reduce history and science instruction for 6th grade students to 1/2 year only, while they had 1/2 year of a class called 'community service.' All parents are able, and ought to enlist their child in a community service project. And I don't know of an organization that would refuse the offer. But why are we paying for a 'community service' educator instead of a qualified core academic instructor? It's a decision that was made using 'our' money, that we have no control over.
I think we need to support what serves the most people most often, then we need to support departments that make the wisest decisions with our money. It's just an opinion.