(. . . and now for something completely different.)
This morning I actually wrote a letter to Sen. Patrick Lahey's office as follows:
The emerging doping scandal in baseball is an excellent opportunity for Senator Leahy -- in his capacity as Judiciary Chair -- to champion an issue with national notoriety and potential positives for himself, the Democratic Party, and Congress as an institution.
- The self-evident success of doping for those who indulged, in terms of their careers and statistics, is a direct threat to public health as young aspiring athletes cannot hope to match the performance of their heroes without doping themselves.
- The scandal has brought the national past time into ill repute - - deepening public skepticism towards a sport which holds tremendous romantic/emotional value to many.
- Doping, like any form of corruption, poisons optimism towards institutions and casts a pall of suspicion upon all future excellence in sport.
- National sports, being businesses, have no real incentive to clean up doping as the heightened individual performances sell tickets, create heroes, and generate revenue.
- The inability of professional sports to regulate themselves and the dearth of meaningful political leadership on this issue continue to erode public confidence in institutions.
The only way to effectively combat their use is a public repudiation of steroid use, the results of that use, and a clear commitment to effective testing for the future. It's clear there's no incentive within baseball to do this and I would think steroid use is as high in other sports as well. Firm, practical congressional leadership on this issue can demonstrate Democratic leadership and a positive role for government at very little cost to taxpayers.
The Senator should outline a series of Congressional hearings on doping in baseball in the context of a comprehensive amnesty akin to South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation" hearings. Congress would grant immunity from federal prosecution to those who testify. Congress would further compel Major League Baseball to offer immunity from league discipline for those who testify. Anyone seeking to receive this amnesty would be required to provide a sealed written proffer within a designated three month window after which any further amnesty requests would be at the discretion of the congressional committee conducting the hearings. While those who proffer and testify would receive immunity, their testimony could be used in the prosecution of others who failed to seek amnesty and federal prosecutors would be encouraged to pursue such cases.
These hearings would achieve three important goals. First, they would place Senator Leahy, the Democrats, and Congress overall at the forefront of the issue; demonstrating clear, decisive, and practical leadership on an issue which is otherwise wholly negative for sport and American culture as a whole. Congress needs some clear, effective, practical successes to change the public mood towards the institution.
Second, the limited-term amnesty offer should flush out players, suppliers, developers, labs, and team officials in a single burst. The slow, sapping trickle of scandal would be stopped and all the dirty laundry would be aired in one set of hearings. The anxiety generated by the amnesty offer and the accountability wrought by the hearings would place bookends around the "steroid era" and allow everyone to walk away in the end feeling that it had been exposed and rooted out.
Third, the depth and breadth of the testimony elicited would allow the hearings to expand into all professional sports and give Congress an opportunity to maintain leadership in a positive way regarding future anti-doping efforts. The testimony should seriously weaken the leagues and players' unions to the point Congress can impose a strict anti-doping regime for the future.
How often does Congress, as an institution, get the chance to be the good guys -- guardian of the national past time and the leadership in a meaningful anti-corruption campaign?
There remains the question of how to handle the record books tainted by doping and how to institute effective anti-doping procedures for the future. The amnesty from discipline would not reach the record books. Instead, once the amnesty and hearings are concluded, each league would convene a records commission made up of fans, journalists, ex-players, and league officials to reach a policy on how to handle doped statistics.
As for future anti-doping, I'd recommend Senator Leahy use the public condemnation of the leagues to threaten a significant television revenue surcharge upon each league to fund an independent national anti-doping agency with adequate resources to independently test for existing and as yet undeveloped doping agents. This independent organization would also need sufficient R&D resources to keep up with the illicit industry. If leagues and their unions can agree to a comprehensive and aggressive testing regime of their own they would be exempt from the tv revenue surcharge.
This is a no-brainer to me. A one-off air-the-dirty-laundry process with a finite end would generate favorable leadership points for Sen. Leahy, the Democratic Party, and Congress as an institution. It would demonstrate positive, practical leadership to a country which seems quite cynical about the national political leadership. It would also become the model for any future anti-doping intervention by Congress - - a significant disincentive to doping for young and future athletes as well.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Testing the Medium
I've been meaning to begin blogging for some time now. Each time I take up the task, I'm bogged down by software, hosting, and format choices. Fed up with my own paralysis, I've decided to plow ahead and add content retrospectively as I go.
Hopefully, with a place to publish, I'll begin writing more going forward as well. I really don't like the first-person self-referential tone of entries like this. Comments would help.
Hopefully, with a place to publish, I'll begin writing more going forward as well. I really don't like the first-person self-referential tone of entries like this. Comments would help.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Norwich Selectboard Woes - Circa 1861
Supreme Court of Vermont.
HARVEY BURTON
v.
THE INHABITANTS OF NORWICH.
February Term, 1861.
The facts reported by the auditor, so far as they are necessary to illustrate the decision, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Trial by the court, at the December Term, 1860,--REDFIELD, Ch. J., presiding.
The court rendered judgment upon the report for the plaintiff, deducting all charges for services, which were rendered by the plaintiff in the employment of, or in consultation with, the town grand juror of Norwich, to which decision the defendants excepted.
Harvey Burton and Converse & French, for the plaintiff.
Washburn & Marsh, for the defendants.
PECK J.
This is an action on book, and comes to this court on exceptions to the decision of the county court, in allowing certain items of the plaintiff's account objected to by the defendant.
The report shows that the plaintiff, at the time the account accrued, was an attorney and counsellor at law, residing in the town of Norwich.
Among the items so objected to by the defendant, and allowed by the county court, are items No. 1, 4, and 15, for professional services as such attorney. No question is made, but that the plaintiff rendered the services, but it appears from the report, that at the time they were rendered, the plaintiff was one of the selectmen of the town, and it is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff rendered the services in his capacity as selectman, and not as an attorney, and that he never was employed by the town as an attorney or counsel, in the suits or matters in which the services were rendered. If this is so, the judgment of the county court was wrong in allowing the amount charged, which is more than he would be entitled to if he rendered the services as selectman merely, and not in his professional character--for the report shows "that the selectmen of the town received but one dollar per day for their services, by vote of the town, for some four or five years, including the year in which the plaintiff was selectman, and that this vote and custom were known to the plaintiff." This binds the plaintiff to that vote of compensation for all services rendered for the town in his official capacity as selectman. These three items accrued under the following circumstances: A petition was pending in court, in which the town was a party, and in which a hearing was about to be had before commissioners, relative to laying out a highway, and "a notice was served upon the plaintiff, as selectman, of the time and place of hearing. He thereupon informed the other selectmen, and had a consultation with them about the matter. The plaintiff advised to the employment of counsel, and said that such was the state of his health that he did not want to take the responsibility of the business upon his hands. With the understanding of the other selectmen, he wrote to Washburn & Marsh to attend before the comissioners as attorneys for the town, and he received a letter from them containing suggestions in regard to the preparation of the case. In accordance with the suggestions, the preparation was made, and that is the service charged for in item fifteen of the account." This item, as appears by the account, is for """examining town records and reports, getting copies of taxes, and preparing the West Hartford road case for hearing before commissioners." The other two items are for attending before said commissioners as attorney or counsel three days, Mr. Marsh having also attended the hearing as counsel for the town. It is objected that the selectmen have no authority to employ counsel, and thereby charge the town, and it is insisted that the sole authority to employ counsel is invested in the town agent.
The statute provides that "the selectmen shall have the general supervision of the concerns of the town, and shall cause all duties required by law of towns and not committed to the care of any particular officer, to be duly performed and executed,"--and entrusts the subject of highways specially to the selectmen. Comp. Stat. p 118, sec. 43. It also provides among the officers to be elected annually, by towns, that they shall elect "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and while it prescribes the duties of other town officers, it leaves the duties of the town agent to be inferred from the name and designation of his office, in the provisions relating to his appointment above stated.
Considering the general duties imposed on the selectmen in connection with the special duties imposed on them in relation to highways, the court think that it is within the scope of their implied powers to protect the interests of the town by employing counsel in road cases, where, as in the present case, the town agent provides no counsel and makes no objection to the employment of counsel by the selectmen. It is true that in Follett v. Whitingham, in Windsor County, 1860, the supreme court decided that when a suit was pending, it was primarily the business of the town agent to employ counsel in such cases, but they also decided that a retainer of counsel by the selectmen with the knowledge and without any dissent on the part of the agent, he declining to act in the matter, was binding until the counsel was subsequently dismissed by the town agent, subsequently elected, who employed other counsel, and that the attorney could not recover for services rendered after such dismissal--but they did not decide what the effect would have have been if the employment had been without notice to the agent. We think his assent may be presumed if that is necessary, where, as in this case, he neglects to employ counsel and no dissent is shown. Which would have the paramount right, in case of disagreement, it is not necessary to decide.
But it is objected that there was no employment of the plaintiff by the selectmen, and that the plaintiff being one of the selectmen, an express employment by the other two, (it appears there were three,) must be shown. There must be an employment either express or implied. But if one selectman is an attorney, and performs necessary professional services for the town in a matter in which the other selectmen, or either of them, act without any dissent on their part, the assent of the others will be presumed, and it is equivalent to an express employment.
But in this case so far as these three items are concerned, inasmuch as other counsel were employed, it cannot be inferred that it was the mutual understanding and expectation of the plaintiff and the other selectmen, or either of them, that the plaintiff was acting as counsel in his professional capacity, but the contrary; these services must therefore be referred to the plaintiff's official capacity as selectman, and be subject to the rule of compensation applicable to such services. The assistance rendered by the plaintiff in that proceeding, was mainly such as might have been rendered by him had he not been a lawyer; it is true it appears he sat with Mr. Marsh, the counsel of the town, and asked some questions, but that is not enough to give a professional character to the services, in the face of the other facts reported.
Item number six was for attending on a trial before commissioners in another case, relating to laying a road, in which the town was a party, and differs from the items already considered in this, that he attended in connection with one of the other selectmen, and the town had no other counsel, and nothing was said to show in what capacity he should act, or to rebut the presumption of an understanding that he was to be paid for his services according to their character, that is, in his professional capacity--and for this item he should be allowed as he has charged.
Item 23, the auditor reports, was for services rendered at the request of the overseer of the poor, and on reference to the account, it is said to be for "advice relative to Mr. Field being a town pauper, and going to his house, at request of overseer of poor." To this item it is objected that the overseer has no authority to bind the town by the employment of counsel. It is certainly necessary and important for the interests of the town, that the overseer should, in many instances, in his department, have legal advice to guide him-- difficult questions often arise in relation to the settlement of paupers, and it often becomes necessary for the overseer to determine whether to procure an order of removal, and for that purpose to know in what town the pauper has his legal settlement, in order to know whether to make a removal, and if so, to what town. The overseer is often called on to judge whether to appeal from an order made against his town. The consequence of making a wrongful removal, or of removing one to a wrong town, or of taking an appeal under a mistaken idea of the law, at once involves the town in litigation, and in no part of the business of a town is reasonable legal advice more necessary than in relation to paupers.
But it is claimed that the town agent has the exclusive authority to engage counsel and take advice. But it seems most appropriate that it should be left to the officer who has the charge of this branch of the business of the town, and who, from his superior knowledge of the facts, would be better prepared to so lay the case before the counsel, as to obtain correct advice, and who is called on to act upon such advice. Before the law was passed creating the office of town agent, there can be no doubt that the overseer had such authority. The law creating the office of town agent, is of comparitively recent origin, and there is no good reason to suppose that by the creation of that office the legislature intended to take away this necessary and salutary power, and transfer it to the town agent. The town agent is designated in the statute as "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and his duties obviously pertain to pending litigation, perhaps to the commencement of suits resolved upon, rather than to preliminary advice, the object and effect of which often is to prevent litigation. This item being of this character must be allowed.
As the defendant has succeeded on his exceptions, in reversing the judgment, it becomes the duty of the court to render such judgment as the county court ought to have rendered, and to correct errors, if any, that may be found in the judgment below by the disallowance of items that the plaintiff claimed, although the plaintiff did not except.
The court below rejected items No. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, which the auditor finds were rendered at the request of the grand juror. The same objection is made to these items, viz: the want of authority in the grand juror to employ counsel. In the administration of that portion of criminal justice entrusted to towns, and in which the fines and costs collected go to the town, and which is conducted at the expense of the town, the necessity in many cases for legal advice and assistance is obvious, both for the interests of the town and for the welfare of the public generally. It is reasonable that some officer of the town should have this authority, and we know of no officer more competent to judge when counsel is necessary for such purpose than the grand juror. It is quite clear that it never was intended that the town agent should take charge of criminal prosecutions. He is appointed to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested. This must have reference to civil suits. With regard to criminal proceedings, the town grand juror is a prosecuting officer, and complaints are to be filed in his name, and prosecuted under his oath of office, and he, and he alone, is to exercise his judgment as to what cases to prosecute, and in what cases to enter a nolle prosequi if justice to the accused or the interest of the public requires it. This power he had before the creation of the office of town agent, and there is no reason to suppose that this important duty was intended to be taken from him, and transferred to the town agent. If such had been the intention, it would have been so provided. Most of these items appear on their face to have accrued in cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and as to the others, in the absence of anything to warrant a contrary inference, they may be presumed to be of the same character, and be taken to be such as the grand juror had a right to incur at the charge of the town. Had it appeared that they accrued in cases beyond the jurisdiction of a justice to hear and finally decide, and therefore not prosecuted at the expense of the town, they could not be allowed, as compensation in such cases is made by the state under an allowance by the court auditor.
The conclusion is, that the judgment of the county court is reversed, and items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, amounting to $103, allowed by the county court, be disallowed, and items Nos. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, amounting to $13, disallowed by the county court, be allowed. And in place of items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, there is to be allowed to the plaintiff the sum of four dollars, for four days services as selectman, being at the rate established by vote of the town. As to the residue of the account, the judgment is in accordance with the judgment of the county court.
BARRETT, J., did not concur as to the grand juror's right to employ counsel and bind the town.
HARVEY BURTON
v.
THE INHABITANTS OF NORWICH.
February Term, 1861.
The facts reported by the auditor, so far as they are necessary to illustrate the decision, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Trial by the court, at the December Term, 1860,--REDFIELD, Ch. J., presiding.
The court rendered judgment upon the report for the plaintiff, deducting all charges for services, which were rendered by the plaintiff in the employment of, or in consultation with, the town grand juror of Norwich, to which decision the defendants excepted.
Harvey Burton and Converse & French, for the plaintiff.
Washburn & Marsh, for the defendants.
PECK J.
This is an action on book, and comes to this court on exceptions to the decision of the county court, in allowing certain items of the plaintiff's account objected to by the defendant.
The report shows that the plaintiff, at the time the account accrued, was an attorney and counsellor at law, residing in the town of Norwich.
Among the items so objected to by the defendant, and allowed by the county court, are items No. 1, 4, and 15, for professional services as such attorney. No question is made, but that the plaintiff rendered the services, but it appears from the report, that at the time they were rendered, the plaintiff was one of the selectmen of the town, and it is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff rendered the services in his capacity as selectman, and not as an attorney, and that he never was employed by the town as an attorney or counsel, in the suits or matters in which the services were rendered. If this is so, the judgment of the county court was wrong in allowing the amount charged, which is more than he would be entitled to if he rendered the services as selectman merely, and not in his professional character--for the report shows "that the selectmen of the town received but one dollar per day for their services, by vote of the town, for some four or five years, including the year in which the plaintiff was selectman, and that this vote and custom were known to the plaintiff." This binds the plaintiff to that vote of compensation for all services rendered for the town in his official capacity as selectman. These three items accrued under the following circumstances: A petition was pending in court, in which the town was a party, and in which a hearing was about to be had before commissioners, relative to laying out a highway, and "a notice was served upon the plaintiff, as selectman, of the time and place of hearing. He thereupon informed the other selectmen, and had a consultation with them about the matter. The plaintiff advised to the employment of counsel, and said that such was the state of his health that he did not want to take the responsibility of the business upon his hands. With the understanding of the other selectmen, he wrote to Washburn & Marsh to attend before the comissioners as attorneys for the town, and he received a letter from them containing suggestions in regard to the preparation of the case. In accordance with the suggestions, the preparation was made, and that is the service charged for in item fifteen of the account." This item, as appears by the account, is for """examining town records and reports, getting copies of taxes, and preparing the West Hartford road case for hearing before commissioners." The other two items are for attending before said commissioners as attorney or counsel three days, Mr. Marsh having also attended the hearing as counsel for the town. It is objected that the selectmen have no authority to employ counsel, and thereby charge the town, and it is insisted that the sole authority to employ counsel is invested in the town agent.
The statute provides that "the selectmen shall have the general supervision of the concerns of the town, and shall cause all duties required by law of towns and not committed to the care of any particular officer, to be duly performed and executed,"--and entrusts the subject of highways specially to the selectmen. Comp. Stat. p 118, sec. 43. It also provides among the officers to be elected annually, by towns, that they shall elect "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and while it prescribes the duties of other town officers, it leaves the duties of the town agent to be inferred from the name and designation of his office, in the provisions relating to his appointment above stated.
Considering the general duties imposed on the selectmen in connection with the special duties imposed on them in relation to highways, the court think that it is within the scope of their implied powers to protect the interests of the town by employing counsel in road cases, where, as in the present case, the town agent provides no counsel and makes no objection to the employment of counsel by the selectmen. It is true that in Follett v. Whitingham, in Windsor County, 1860, the supreme court decided that when a suit was pending, it was primarily the business of the town agent to employ counsel in such cases, but they also decided that a retainer of counsel by the selectmen with the knowledge and without any dissent on the part of the agent, he declining to act in the matter, was binding until the counsel was subsequently dismissed by the town agent, subsequently elected, who employed other counsel, and that the attorney could not recover for services rendered after such dismissal--but they did not decide what the effect would have have been if the employment had been without notice to the agent. We think his assent may be presumed if that is necessary, where, as in this case, he neglects to employ counsel and no dissent is shown. Which would have the paramount right, in case of disagreement, it is not necessary to decide.
But it is objected that there was no employment of the plaintiff by the selectmen, and that the plaintiff being one of the selectmen, an express employment by the other two, (it appears there were three,) must be shown. There must be an employment either express or implied. But if one selectman is an attorney, and performs necessary professional services for the town in a matter in which the other selectmen, or either of them, act without any dissent on their part, the assent of the others will be presumed, and it is equivalent to an express employment.
But in this case so far as these three items are concerned, inasmuch as other counsel were employed, it cannot be inferred that it was the mutual understanding and expectation of the plaintiff and the other selectmen, or either of them, that the plaintiff was acting as counsel in his professional capacity, but the contrary; these services must therefore be referred to the plaintiff's official capacity as selectman, and be subject to the rule of compensation applicable to such services. The assistance rendered by the plaintiff in that proceeding, was mainly such as might have been rendered by him had he not been a lawyer; it is true it appears he sat with Mr. Marsh, the counsel of the town, and asked some questions, but that is not enough to give a professional character to the services, in the face of the other facts reported.
Item number six was for attending on a trial before commissioners in another case, relating to laying a road, in which the town was a party, and differs from the items already considered in this, that he attended in connection with one of the other selectmen, and the town had no other counsel, and nothing was said to show in what capacity he should act, or to rebut the presumption of an understanding that he was to be paid for his services according to their character, that is, in his professional capacity--and for this item he should be allowed as he has charged.
Item 23, the auditor reports, was for services rendered at the request of the overseer of the poor, and on reference to the account, it is said to be for "advice relative to Mr. Field being a town pauper, and going to his house, at request of overseer of poor." To this item it is objected that the overseer has no authority to bind the town by the employment of counsel. It is certainly necessary and important for the interests of the town, that the overseer should, in many instances, in his department, have legal advice to guide him-- difficult questions often arise in relation to the settlement of paupers, and it often becomes necessary for the overseer to determine whether to procure an order of removal, and for that purpose to know in what town the pauper has his legal settlement, in order to know whether to make a removal, and if so, to what town. The overseer is often called on to judge whether to appeal from an order made against his town. The consequence of making a wrongful removal, or of removing one to a wrong town, or of taking an appeal under a mistaken idea of the law, at once involves the town in litigation, and in no part of the business of a town is reasonable legal advice more necessary than in relation to paupers.
But it is claimed that the town agent has the exclusive authority to engage counsel and take advice. But it seems most appropriate that it should be left to the officer who has the charge of this branch of the business of the town, and who, from his superior knowledge of the facts, would be better prepared to so lay the case before the counsel, as to obtain correct advice, and who is called on to act upon such advice. Before the law was passed creating the office of town agent, there can be no doubt that the overseer had such authority. The law creating the office of town agent, is of comparitively recent origin, and there is no good reason to suppose that by the creation of that office the legislature intended to take away this necessary and salutary power, and transfer it to the town agent. The town agent is designated in the statute as "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and his duties obviously pertain to pending litigation, perhaps to the commencement of suits resolved upon, rather than to preliminary advice, the object and effect of which often is to prevent litigation. This item being of this character must be allowed.
As the defendant has succeeded on his exceptions, in reversing the judgment, it becomes the duty of the court to render such judgment as the county court ought to have rendered, and to correct errors, if any, that may be found in the judgment below by the disallowance of items that the plaintiff claimed, although the plaintiff did not except.
The court below rejected items No. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, which the auditor finds were rendered at the request of the grand juror. The same objection is made to these items, viz: the want of authority in the grand juror to employ counsel. In the administration of that portion of criminal justice entrusted to towns, and in which the fines and costs collected go to the town, and which is conducted at the expense of the town, the necessity in many cases for legal advice and assistance is obvious, both for the interests of the town and for the welfare of the public generally. It is reasonable that some officer of the town should have this authority, and we know of no officer more competent to judge when counsel is necessary for such purpose than the grand juror. It is quite clear that it never was intended that the town agent should take charge of criminal prosecutions. He is appointed to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested. This must have reference to civil suits. With regard to criminal proceedings, the town grand juror is a prosecuting officer, and complaints are to be filed in his name, and prosecuted under his oath of office, and he, and he alone, is to exercise his judgment as to what cases to prosecute, and in what cases to enter a nolle prosequi if justice to the accused or the interest of the public requires it. This power he had before the creation of the office of town agent, and there is no reason to suppose that this important duty was intended to be taken from him, and transferred to the town agent. If such had been the intention, it would have been so provided. Most of these items appear on their face to have accrued in cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and as to the others, in the absence of anything to warrant a contrary inference, they may be presumed to be of the same character, and be taken to be such as the grand juror had a right to incur at the charge of the town. Had it appeared that they accrued in cases beyond the jurisdiction of a justice to hear and finally decide, and therefore not prosecuted at the expense of the town, they could not be allowed, as compensation in such cases is made by the state under an allowance by the court auditor.
The conclusion is, that the judgment of the county court is reversed, and items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, amounting to $103, allowed by the county court, be disallowed, and items Nos. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, amounting to $13, disallowed by the county court, be allowed. And in place of items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, there is to be allowed to the plaintiff the sum of four dollars, for four days services as selectman, being at the rate established by vote of the town. As to the residue of the account, the judgment is in accordance with the judgment of the county court.
BARRETT, J., did not concur as to the grand juror's right to employ counsel and bind the town.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Land Use Police
Tuesday's Valley News front section offers an interesting portrait in newsworthiness.
Page 1 reports on the continuing police saga in Norwich with Gerard Chapdelaine regrettably caught speaking out of school. Page 2 holds a much more important story for Norwich residents, entitled, "School Board To Discuss Wilder Units." For those who may have missed it, there is an application before the Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment and School Board for the construction of an 192-unit subdivision behind the Dothan Brook School on Route 5 in Wilder just south of the Norwich/Hartford border. 500 yards north and this would be huge story as a two hundred unit subdivision in Norwich would constitute a quantum leap in housing stock for this town. Instead, the development will be permitted and constructed without any input from Norwich and, but for this post perhaps, largely beneath our collective radar.
What we will notice, once these units are occupied, is the hundreds of additional car trips daily on Route 5 headed to and from the Exit 13 interchange. That traffic will be a factor for every Norwich resident passing through that interchange for the rest of our lives here. I'm not saying the development itself is good or bad. I'm simply noting how odd it is that a police job action few of us will remember twelve months from now trumps a development which will materially alter the lives of all commuters in our town for years to come.
Nowhere in Tuesday's paper can you find mention of the biggest story for Norwich residents. Our Planning Commission, after years of work, has produced new draft zoning regulations and convened a second public hearing to receive public input scheduled for Thursday evening. These regulations will govern every significant change any Norwich land owners wish to undertake on their property for the foreseeable future. The cumulative effect of these regulations will determine the look and feel of our community, influence land values, and define the costs of development for land owners and their neighbors in concrete and permanent ways.
I don't recall seeing any reporters from with the Valley News or Spectator at the earlier public hearing and don't expect they'll be in attendance Thursday either. I don't expect many of you reading this to put aside the hours necessary to absorb the 142 page draft document or troop down to Tracy Hall Thursday evening to discuss them. I'm simply pointing out that big changes are afoot for Norwich residents -- bigger, I dare say, than our police force and with much longer term consequences. Apparently, these changes don't fit the news cycle and probably don't sell newspapers.
Unwelcome news indeed.
Page 1 reports on the continuing police saga in Norwich with Gerard Chapdelaine regrettably caught speaking out of school. Page 2 holds a much more important story for Norwich residents, entitled, "School Board To Discuss Wilder Units." For those who may have missed it, there is an application before the Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment and School Board for the construction of an 192-unit subdivision behind the Dothan Brook School on Route 5 in Wilder just south of the Norwich/Hartford border. 500 yards north and this would be huge story as a two hundred unit subdivision in Norwich would constitute a quantum leap in housing stock for this town. Instead, the development will be permitted and constructed without any input from Norwich and, but for this post perhaps, largely beneath our collective radar.
What we will notice, once these units are occupied, is the hundreds of additional car trips daily on Route 5 headed to and from the Exit 13 interchange. That traffic will be a factor for every Norwich resident passing through that interchange for the rest of our lives here. I'm not saying the development itself is good or bad. I'm simply noting how odd it is that a police job action few of us will remember twelve months from now trumps a development which will materially alter the lives of all commuters in our town for years to come.
Nowhere in Tuesday's paper can you find mention of the biggest story for Norwich residents. Our Planning Commission, after years of work, has produced new draft zoning regulations and convened a second public hearing to receive public input scheduled for Thursday evening. These regulations will govern every significant change any Norwich land owners wish to undertake on their property for the foreseeable future. The cumulative effect of these regulations will determine the look and feel of our community, influence land values, and define the costs of development for land owners and their neighbors in concrete and permanent ways.
I don't recall seeing any reporters from with the Valley News or Spectator at the earlier public hearing and don't expect they'll be in attendance Thursday either. I don't expect many of you reading this to put aside the hours necessary to absorb the 142 page draft document or troop down to Tracy Hall Thursday evening to discuss them. I'm simply pointing out that big changes are afoot for Norwich residents -- bigger, I dare say, than our police force and with much longer term consequences. Apparently, these changes don't fit the news cycle and probably don't sell newspapers.
Unwelcome news indeed.
Comments on Draft Zoning - Open Letter to PC
To the Planning Commission:
I think the Planning Commission has done an admirable job under almost absurdly difficult circumstances to pull together these draft zoning regulations. Nevertheless, I urge the Planning Commission to seriously reconsider these draft zoning regulations and the manner by which they are promulgated. As drafted, I am concerned these regulations impose substantial restrictions upon individual land owners in an effort to prevent impacts most commonly created by subdivisions and large-scale development. In my opinion, this approach unnecessarily burdens individual land owners and significantly increasing our permitting and enforcement responsibilities to the eventual aggravation of many with very little to show for it in the end.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review these regulations from the viewpoint of an individual land owner seeking a zoning permit to build an addition or renovate an accessory structure on their land. These types of permits - - these instances of individual land owners confronting our zoning regulations for the purpose of making improvements to their property -- outnumber new home permits nearly four-to-one in recent years. Recognizing the limited individual impact such improvements are likely to pose, it may be worth considering a drastically reduced set of minimum restrictions applicable to non-new construction which aim to protect only the most compelling community interests.
2. Review several case studies based upon recent zoning permits, working through the regulations as the applicant, Zoning Administrator and/or DRB would be required to do. At each step, it is worth asking whether the restriction or added expense is justified by the development impact it seeks to limit. I'm concerned a number of measures in these regulations require a level of documentation, review, and enforcement supervision entirely disproportionate to their regulatory goals.
3. While it may sound obvious, the use of "shall" and "should" in these regulations is the difference between enforceable regulation and unsolicited advice. Wherever the regulations say a regulatory measure "shall" or "must" apply, that is a mandatory rule upon which an application must be denied unless some mitigating waiver authority is provided. Wherever regulations say "should" or "may," the regulatory measure is likely unenforceable as a basis for denying a permit. That being the case, you should ask whether the measure so recommended belongs in these regulations at all. While it may seem fine for the Planning Commission to promulgate unsolicited advice via these regulations, it's a difficult role for the DRB to administrate.
4. Consider creating regulatory tiers: a least restrictive tier for renovations and additions; a more restrictive tier for new home construction and adaptive reuse of existing structures; and the most scrutiny and regulation for subdivisions creating new lots and conditional uses creating more intensive use of surrounding infrastructure. Ideally, applicants and the DRB should be able to clearly identify the appropriate tier for each proposed development and the regulatory burdens imposed by those tiers should be commensurate to the intensification of use.
5. Consistent with the tiering idea proposed above, I'd urge you all to consider restructuring these regulations to simplify the specific regulatory restrictions and facilitate their use by applicants and their neighbors. Joe Cassidy's comments at the last public hearing -- expressing a "where to begin" bewilderment at these regs -- are a clear signal that whatever the regulatory virtues of this draft, it is a daunting body of regulations for land owners and DRB members to navigate. In other words, apart from questions of policy, this draft needs significant reorganization to improve usability for those actually affected by them.
6. I'll simply reiterate my concern expressed at the earlier public hearing that these draft regulations appear to me a significant departure from the "incentives towards better development" approach which our subdivision regulations pioneered. The complexity and low usability of these regulations further heighten the likelihood that land owners will find permitting under this draft a series of unpleasant surprises. I thought the new subdivision regulations made impressive strides towards helping land owners anticipate the issues so permitting could become more predictable and thus a more constructive experience for all. These regulations, I'm afraid, are a significant step back from that goal.
Finally, I again urge you all to consider a radical review of the overall promulgation process. For the past few years, I've gathered the distinct impression that my comments and criticisms of prior drafts and the drafting process have been unwelcome. Perhaps I'm simply deluded regarding the value of my comments, but I tend to believe this is more a factor of your workload, reflected in Stuart Richards' comments at the public hearing urging you all to get on with the town plan. As I've said on a number of occasions to both the PC and the Selectboard, I believe our planning and permitting process is fundamentally broken and must be addressed comprehensively. I do not think this is simply a matter of personalities or factions, but rather rests on structural and conceptual issues which are found throughout the state. I believe the recent changes to Chapter 117 were a legislative effort to reconceptualize the process in response to these difficulties. I'm disheartened that so much honest and well-intentioned volunteer effort continues to be expended on a structure which produces so little in return. The Selectboard in all it's recent iterations has shown no stomach to even discuss this matter. Our Town Manager lacks the familiarity with planning and permitting to be expected to lead a review. It's really up to you all, as a commission, to provide the leadership that can help us all escape this ineffectual grind that exhausting everyone.
As always, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further, cognizant of the fact your meeting agenda is effectively backlogged in perpetuity.
I think the Planning Commission has done an admirable job under almost absurdly difficult circumstances to pull together these draft zoning regulations. Nevertheless, I urge the Planning Commission to seriously reconsider these draft zoning regulations and the manner by which they are promulgated. As drafted, I am concerned these regulations impose substantial restrictions upon individual land owners in an effort to prevent impacts most commonly created by subdivisions and large-scale development. In my opinion, this approach unnecessarily burdens individual land owners and significantly increasing our permitting and enforcement responsibilities to the eventual aggravation of many with very little to show for it in the end.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review these regulations from the viewpoint of an individual land owner seeking a zoning permit to build an addition or renovate an accessory structure on their land. These types of permits - - these instances of individual land owners confronting our zoning regulations for the purpose of making improvements to their property -- outnumber new home permits nearly four-to-one in recent years. Recognizing the limited individual impact such improvements are likely to pose, it may be worth considering a drastically reduced set of minimum restrictions applicable to non-new construction which aim to protect only the most compelling community interests.
2. Review several case studies based upon recent zoning permits, working through the regulations as the applicant, Zoning Administrator and/or DRB would be required to do. At each step, it is worth asking whether the restriction or added expense is justified by the development impact it seeks to limit. I'm concerned a number of measures in these regulations require a level of documentation, review, and enforcement supervision entirely disproportionate to their regulatory goals.
3. While it may sound obvious, the use of "shall" and "should" in these regulations is the difference between enforceable regulation and unsolicited advice. Wherever the regulations say a regulatory measure "shall" or "must" apply, that is a mandatory rule upon which an application must be denied unless some mitigating waiver authority is provided. Wherever regulations say "should" or "may," the regulatory measure is likely unenforceable as a basis for denying a permit. That being the case, you should ask whether the measure so recommended belongs in these regulations at all. While it may seem fine for the Planning Commission to promulgate unsolicited advice via these regulations, it's a difficult role for the DRB to administrate.
4. Consider creating regulatory tiers: a least restrictive tier for renovations and additions; a more restrictive tier for new home construction and adaptive reuse of existing structures; and the most scrutiny and regulation for subdivisions creating new lots and conditional uses creating more intensive use of surrounding infrastructure. Ideally, applicants and the DRB should be able to clearly identify the appropriate tier for each proposed development and the regulatory burdens imposed by those tiers should be commensurate to the intensification of use.
5. Consistent with the tiering idea proposed above, I'd urge you all to consider restructuring these regulations to simplify the specific regulatory restrictions and facilitate their use by applicants and their neighbors. Joe Cassidy's comments at the last public hearing -- expressing a "where to begin" bewilderment at these regs -- are a clear signal that whatever the regulatory virtues of this draft, it is a daunting body of regulations for land owners and DRB members to navigate. In other words, apart from questions of policy, this draft needs significant reorganization to improve usability for those actually affected by them.
6. I'll simply reiterate my concern expressed at the earlier public hearing that these draft regulations appear to me a significant departure from the "incentives towards better development" approach which our subdivision regulations pioneered. The complexity and low usability of these regulations further heighten the likelihood that land owners will find permitting under this draft a series of unpleasant surprises. I thought the new subdivision regulations made impressive strides towards helping land owners anticipate the issues so permitting could become more predictable and thus a more constructive experience for all. These regulations, I'm afraid, are a significant step back from that goal.
Finally, I again urge you all to consider a radical review of the overall promulgation process. For the past few years, I've gathered the distinct impression that my comments and criticisms of prior drafts and the drafting process have been unwelcome. Perhaps I'm simply deluded regarding the value of my comments, but I tend to believe this is more a factor of your workload, reflected in Stuart Richards' comments at the public hearing urging you all to get on with the town plan. As I've said on a number of occasions to both the PC and the Selectboard, I believe our planning and permitting process is fundamentally broken and must be addressed comprehensively. I do not think this is simply a matter of personalities or factions, but rather rests on structural and conceptual issues which are found throughout the state. I believe the recent changes to Chapter 117 were a legislative effort to reconceptualize the process in response to these difficulties. I'm disheartened that so much honest and well-intentioned volunteer effort continues to be expended on a structure which produces so little in return. The Selectboard in all it's recent iterations has shown no stomach to even discuss this matter. Our Town Manager lacks the familiarity with planning and permitting to be expected to lead a review. It's really up to you all, as a commission, to provide the leadership that can help us all escape this ineffectual grind that exhausting everyone.
As always, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further, cognizant of the fact your meeting agenda is effectively backlogged in perpetuity.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Unintended Consequences
Re: recent posts concerning another town committee to review town manager-style government. I wonder what might have happened if the Selectboard had fixed the town manager petition and allowed it to go to the voters rather than turning it into an advisory article.
We can only speculate as to the outcome of a vote on the article had it been allowed, but I think it's fair to assume the debate over this article would have been much more vigorous. Any number of people might have spoken up who felt no need to debate an advisory article on the matter. More might have reviewed the original committee report to understand what prompted the creation of a town manager in the first place. Proponents of rescinding the town manager structure would have been forced to defend their position not merely as criticism of the existing town manager but as a better approach to town government in itself. Had the Selectboard allowed the voters to decide the matter, the entire political landscape of the weeks leading up to town meeting would have been altered. Whether a town manager makes sense might well have dwarfed whether our police are properly supervised. We'll never know.
I recall Warren Rudman's comment defending "the People's right to be wrong," as a basic principle of democratic leadership and I tend to agree. An advisory article to create a new committee to revisit the town manager question occurs only at the expense of the handful of volunteers who will labor on that committee. A majority decision to reverse the town manager structure would have thrown town government into turmoil, the decision made at the expense of the people who made the decision. Shouldn't we trust the voters to recognize the risk, or, at very least, give voters the opportunity to get the government we deserve? Or do we have that already?
We can only speculate as to the outcome of a vote on the article had it been allowed, but I think it's fair to assume the debate over this article would have been much more vigorous. Any number of people might have spoken up who felt no need to debate an advisory article on the matter. More might have reviewed the original committee report to understand what prompted the creation of a town manager in the first place. Proponents of rescinding the town manager structure would have been forced to defend their position not merely as criticism of the existing town manager but as a better approach to town government in itself. Had the Selectboard allowed the voters to decide the matter, the entire political landscape of the weeks leading up to town meeting would have been altered. Whether a town manager makes sense might well have dwarfed whether our police are properly supervised. We'll never know.
I recall Warren Rudman's comment defending "the People's right to be wrong," as a basic principle of democratic leadership and I tend to agree. An advisory article to create a new committee to revisit the town manager question occurs only at the expense of the handful of volunteers who will labor on that committee. A majority decision to reverse the town manager structure would have thrown town government into turmoil, the decision made at the expense of the people who made the decision. Shouldn't we trust the voters to recognize the risk, or, at very least, give voters the opportunity to get the government we deserve? Or do we have that already?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Beating a Dead Horse with Relish - (Valley News Op-Ed)
To the Editor:
Your March 13th headline story covering the Norwich "Gateway" development reveals a level of journalistic bias and misunderstanding which I find simply lazy.
First the bias. Your reporter summarizes the events of the past three years concerning this parcel as a "drawn-out political fight over the overgrown lot, which lies about 600 feet from the Interstate 91 on-ramp." What political fight?
Simpson Development Corp. purchased an option on this parcel, filed an application, proceeded through a number of public hearings before our Development Review Board marked by very limited public participation, then appealed when the permit was denied. After this drawn-out legal battle over the requisite permits, a group of townspeople began a fund raising campaign to purchase the parcel. That effort failed to raise enough to buy the parcel and construction will commence within weeks. A Valley News columnist derided the fund raising effort, particularly in light of a failed affordable housing project elsewhere in town, but I missed the fight. Simpson, the "Save the Entrance" folks, and the town entities involved in the permit proceedings all acted rationally, deliberately, and without rancor. The fund raising effort faded with the bemused shrugs of many townspeople, not vanquished in any "drawn-out political fight." Norwich certainly has it's share of political fights, but this was, if anything, an honorable exception.
Overgrown lot overshadowed by the interstate? Simpson plunked down a quarter of a million dollars to buy it at a time their permit application was still under appeal. Simpson intends to invest well over a million dollars building five townhouses -- targeted for sale at around $500,000 apiece -- their representative stating later in this same article, that "this is the kind of development that everybody’s pushing for -- to have housing close to the center of town." The "Save the Entrance" group sought to raise nearly $600,000 to purchase and preserve this parcel for town use. Simpson appears willing to risk well in excess of a million dollars to develop this same parcel for townhouses. If successful, their buyers will shell out in excess of $2.5 million to live there. Why scoff at the judgment of the individuals who contributed to the preservation effort when so much more will be paid by others for their own semi-private piece of the parcel?
Finally, your reporter fundamentally misunderstands the legal proceedings in this matter. Judge Durkin's decision granting the Simpson permit never stated "that the [Development Review Board] had exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" because Judge Durkin -- as he notes in his opinion -- never read the DRB's decision. His decision rejected and nullified the value -- exaggerated or otherwise -- the Norwich subdivision regulations and the town's Inventory of Scenic Resources placed upon that parcel.
The difference is substantial. It's one thing to overturn a board because that appointed body misinterpreted the town's regulations or misconstrued the relevant facts. It's quite another to determine that a town's regulations themselves -- the result of hundreds of hours of volunteer effort, duly adopted and expressing the town's legitimate authority to regulate development for the common benefit of all townspeople -- are wrong-minded. Judge Durkin's decision says the people of Norwich, acting through our conservation commission, planning commission, and selectboard; and participating through public hearings which reviewed and ratified these regulations, "exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" and could not regulate the proposed development of this parcel in this instance.
Here we find a political fight with real substance, but sadly, too few reporters interested in chasing the story with the respect and integrity it deserves. It's the constant vital struggle between the individual land owner's right to do with property as he or she sees fit versus the community's right to regulate property for the general welfare. Vermont remains one of the few jurisdictions on Earth where that struggle has been entrusted to the people; to legislate regulations and adjudicate individual development using citizen commissions and boards; to engage one another in a perpetual dialogue about fairness and the common interest, the legacy we've inherited as stewards of these communities and the sense of place we'll confer to those who follow us. When Vermont's laws tilt towards granting judges the authority to supersede the regulatory judgment of these communities; when citizen boards and commissions give way to professional planners and municipal attorneys, we're talking about something much larger, something far more dear, than an overgrown lot and high-end condominiums. Your smug epitaph for the "Gateway to the Village" of Norwich suits the paper, not the story.
Your March 13th headline story covering the Norwich "Gateway" development reveals a level of journalistic bias and misunderstanding which I find simply lazy.
First the bias. Your reporter summarizes the events of the past three years concerning this parcel as a "drawn-out political fight over the overgrown lot, which lies about 600 feet from the Interstate 91 on-ramp." What political fight?
Simpson Development Corp. purchased an option on this parcel, filed an application, proceeded through a number of public hearings before our Development Review Board marked by very limited public participation, then appealed when the permit was denied. After this drawn-out legal battle over the requisite permits, a group of townspeople began a fund raising campaign to purchase the parcel. That effort failed to raise enough to buy the parcel and construction will commence within weeks. A Valley News columnist derided the fund raising effort, particularly in light of a failed affordable housing project elsewhere in town, but I missed the fight. Simpson, the "Save the Entrance" folks, and the town entities involved in the permit proceedings all acted rationally, deliberately, and without rancor. The fund raising effort faded with the bemused shrugs of many townspeople, not vanquished in any "drawn-out political fight." Norwich certainly has it's share of political fights, but this was, if anything, an honorable exception.
Overgrown lot overshadowed by the interstate? Simpson plunked down a quarter of a million dollars to buy it at a time their permit application was still under appeal. Simpson intends to invest well over a million dollars building five townhouses -- targeted for sale at around $500,000 apiece -- their representative stating later in this same article, that "this is the kind of development that everybody’s pushing for -- to have housing close to the center of town." The "Save the Entrance" group sought to raise nearly $600,000 to purchase and preserve this parcel for town use. Simpson appears willing to risk well in excess of a million dollars to develop this same parcel for townhouses. If successful, their buyers will shell out in excess of $2.5 million to live there. Why scoff at the judgment of the individuals who contributed to the preservation effort when so much more will be paid by others for their own semi-private piece of the parcel?
Finally, your reporter fundamentally misunderstands the legal proceedings in this matter. Judge Durkin's decision granting the Simpson permit never stated "that the [Development Review Board] had exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" because Judge Durkin -- as he notes in his opinion -- never read the DRB's decision. His decision rejected and nullified the value -- exaggerated or otherwise -- the Norwich subdivision regulations and the town's Inventory of Scenic Resources placed upon that parcel.
The difference is substantial. It's one thing to overturn a board because that appointed body misinterpreted the town's regulations or misconstrued the relevant facts. It's quite another to determine that a town's regulations themselves -- the result of hundreds of hours of volunteer effort, duly adopted and expressing the town's legitimate authority to regulate development for the common benefit of all townspeople -- are wrong-minded. Judge Durkin's decision says the people of Norwich, acting through our conservation commission, planning commission, and selectboard; and participating through public hearings which reviewed and ratified these regulations, "exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" and could not regulate the proposed development of this parcel in this instance.
Here we find a political fight with real substance, but sadly, too few reporters interested in chasing the story with the respect and integrity it deserves. It's the constant vital struggle between the individual land owner's right to do with property as he or she sees fit versus the community's right to regulate property for the general welfare. Vermont remains one of the few jurisdictions on Earth where that struggle has been entrusted to the people; to legislate regulations and adjudicate individual development using citizen commissions and boards; to engage one another in a perpetual dialogue about fairness and the common interest, the legacy we've inherited as stewards of these communities and the sense of place we'll confer to those who follow us. When Vermont's laws tilt towards granting judges the authority to supersede the regulatory judgment of these communities; when citizen boards and commissions give way to professional planners and municipal attorneys, we're talking about something much larger, something far more dear, than an overgrown lot and high-end condominiums. Your smug epitaph for the "Gateway to the Village" of Norwich suits the paper, not the story.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Part Two -- Town Managers, Police, What's Missing?
As I tried to make clear in an earlier post, this town adopted a town manager form of government five years ago to remedy the deficiencies of selectboard management at that time.
The 2001 Town Administrative Options Committee report, convinced of the need for a structural response to our management woes, nevertheless offered two qualifications to their recommendation that Norwich adopt a town manager form of government:
"Ultimately, however, Norwich residents will determine whether adoption of a town manager helps our town. We have two concerns. First, the adoption of a town manager form of government may help erode our tradition of self-governance. As certain governmental matters are shifted to professional managers—and away from a volunteer Selectboard of our peers—we run the risk of creating a “hired” government and ourselves becoming mere consumers of municipal services. We feel strongly that this town and its people have been served well by a tradition of active civic involvement in town matters, and hope natives and newcomers alike will preserve this tradition even as we make concessions to today’s demands for professional services.
Second, there is no administrative remedy for incivility or for seeking to use town government as a weapon in political disputes. It is up to us, as individuals and as a community, to show—and expect of our neighbors—greater civility and constructive participation in public affairs. Prior generations have shown us what Norwich can achieve through self-reliance, sacrifice, and restraint. As we recommend practical steps to address future needs through the adoption of a town manager, we also hope our neighbors will keep in place the traditions of civil discourse and active participation that have meant so much in creating the town and community we share."
The point of this post -- as the report itself forecast when it first recommended a town manager -- is that our current difficulties regarding police and overall town management boil down to two terms: "bureaucratization" and "judgment."
The TAOC report plainly states that certain aspects of town administration, things like generally accepted accounting practices for municipalities; employee compensation and performance reviews; and governance best practices, have simply grown too complex -- too time-consuming -- to be performed well by elected volunteers. As it turns out, professional management brings with it a level of formality, a by-the-book respect for rules and regulations, which doesn't always sit well with lay people. This bureaucratic outlook begins to alter the tone of town government, leading, as we've seen this political season, to conflict with some citizens who feel common sense has been sacrificed in reverence for the letter of the law.
Our town manager and police chief take a certain pride in the professionalism of our current police force. Both have defended fines and conduct which have drawn criticism as consistent with town ordinance and state law. Both point out that our police force will soon receive national accreditation for their policies and practices. Chief Robinson, in a recent letter to the Valley News, pointedly noted that the current police force do not spend duty time surfing the web. I have no doubt the police have been directed, and have conducted themselves, consistent with their understanding of their duty. From that perspective, they must find some of the criticism leveled against them puzzling and offensive. I expect the national accreditation process may well vindicate the policies and practices our police have employed in the various incidents which have fueled the current controversy.
Behold the bureaucratic mindset. Our town manager and police chief have -- laudably I think -- identified professionalism and the objective measure of professionalism as primary goals in the conduct of their duties. Within that frame of reference, I'll bet we have an exemplary police force and I would be astounded if the national accreditation process concluded otherwise. The real question is whether national accreditation and the policies it embodies reflect the policing needs of a town such as ours. The answer, I'm afraid, is both yes and no.
Yes, because I recall a terrible incident of domestic violence some years ago which shook this town and exposed our police force of that time to a level of cold objective scrutiny for which it was wholly unprepared. Past and future victims -- seared by the experience -- have every reason to demand better protection and the highest standards of professionalism where it's at all conceivable those standards might prevent another incident. There's no proportionality to that demand. Some things are so awful we expect and authorize extreme measures to combat them. Our criminal laws have been written almost entirely in response to terrible crimes and at the behest of those left in their wake, so too, our regulations often reflect past accidents. There are truck weight laws because there have been terrible accidents with over-weighted trucks losing control. There are established policing strategies to combat loitering and petty acts because there is objective evidence that a more prominent police presence deters worse crimes. In light of the potential for bad things to happen and the simple fact police are often held accountable when bad things do happen, it's easy to understand the bureaucratic affection for a "by-the-book" approach to enforcement.
And yet, the answer is also surely no. No, because small towns and community itself are premised on a shared sense of proportionality, a common sense of how much is enough and what goes too far. There is simply no way a set of national standards, or even state laws, can reflect small town life in Norwich, Vermont. Certain policing methods -- fully consistent with national standards -- will inevitably rub some Norwich residents the wrong way.
There's a fundamental, unavoidable, tension between our rights as citizens and the enforcement of our laws; a tension as American as our Constitution and our rocky evolution as a democratic society. It would seem easy enough to engage our town manager and police chief in a dialogue seeking to balance a bureaucratic emphasis on professionalism with a democratic feel for small town culture. Apparently not. Instead of dialogue, we have ballot initiatives seeking to revoke the town manager structure and reform policing methods by eliminating officers and paring their budget with little regard shown for how we got here or what the consequences might be. Instead of working together to find a common ground on appropriate levels of enforcement and developing a common touch, we have accusations and counter-accusations questioning motives and arguing about who will lose their job instead of why their job is at risk in the first place.
Here's where judgment comes in. If every claim of overbearing Norwich police conduct I've read or heard this past year is true, then the critics have every right to be mad. If every attempt to raise these concerns with our town manager, the police chief, and individual selectboard members has been rebuffed in the manner reported, the critics have every right to be even madder. But even taking every charge as proven -- conceding the right to outrage -- that right still carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of acting in anger.
Will Norwich be a better place -- will our police force be more responsive -- with all administrative authority dumped back on the selectboard? Isn't this the same selectboard which reportedly has shown itself incapable or unwilling to address these offenses in the first place? Won't the next town committee convened to consider our administrative needs simply bemoan the destructive micromanagement of police staffing by warrant article even as it repeats the same litany of failures which prompted adoption of a town manager back in 2001? Do we really improve the job performance of a town employee by obliterating that employee's position? Do we really get better policing by giving voters a yes-or-no vote on the overall police budget every year? As retribution for past outrages, these warrant articles may prove sweet in the tasting, but galling on the stomach.
I don't know why Norwich needs to work out our differences with verbal and legal sledgehammers. I don't know how or why some pretty gifted politicians on our selectboard weren't able to dampen down this brush fire before it blazed out of control. The creation of a town manager has introduced a bureaucratic sensibility to town government and the creation of a professional fire chief will likely further the effect. The dissonance between a bureaucratic mindset and a small town sense of proportionality has triggered this latest fracas and it won't be the last. Given the clash of cultures between professional government and small town informality; between the necessity of law enforcement and the right to be left alone; given the legal limbo teenagers occupy where they are told they're too young to partake of adult amusements but punished as adults when they disobey, there will be future incidents.
The only solution is better judgment. The judgment to discern circumstances where literal enforcement of certain regulations is disproportionate to the infraction. The judgment to recognize the right of citizens to complain and provide the leadership which addresses the substance of those complaints without being deafened by their tone. The judgment to recognize there is a price in terms of bureaucratic formality we must accept if we expect a higher level of service and performance from town employees. The judgment to remember that every time we gird for battle against some other group in town, we make it harder to live together as a community.
What's right for Norwich in terms of policing, fire protection, and professional management? The right answer is to ask the question openly, with civility, and humbly, accepting that today's response may no longer fit tomorrow, so will need to be asked again soon. Our town manager and police force are town employees, subject to the direction and supervision of our elected selectboard. Their livelihoods and their sense of a job well done, being fallible human beings, depend upon effective direction and fair supervision. Warrant articles can't provide that, but it shouldn't take the threat of such articles to get people's attention. It's time to try something else.
The 2001 Town Administrative Options Committee report, convinced of the need for a structural response to our management woes, nevertheless offered two qualifications to their recommendation that Norwich adopt a town manager form of government:
"Ultimately, however, Norwich residents will determine whether adoption of a town manager helps our town. We have two concerns. First, the adoption of a town manager form of government may help erode our tradition of self-governance. As certain governmental matters are shifted to professional managers—and away from a volunteer Selectboard of our peers—we run the risk of creating a “hired” government and ourselves becoming mere consumers of municipal services. We feel strongly that this town and its people have been served well by a tradition of active civic involvement in town matters, and hope natives and newcomers alike will preserve this tradition even as we make concessions to today’s demands for professional services.
Second, there is no administrative remedy for incivility or for seeking to use town government as a weapon in political disputes. It is up to us, as individuals and as a community, to show—and expect of our neighbors—greater civility and constructive participation in public affairs. Prior generations have shown us what Norwich can achieve through self-reliance, sacrifice, and restraint. As we recommend practical steps to address future needs through the adoption of a town manager, we also hope our neighbors will keep in place the traditions of civil discourse and active participation that have meant so much in creating the town and community we share."
The point of this post -- as the report itself forecast when it first recommended a town manager -- is that our current difficulties regarding police and overall town management boil down to two terms: "bureaucratization" and "judgment."
The TAOC report plainly states that certain aspects of town administration, things like generally accepted accounting practices for municipalities; employee compensation and performance reviews; and governance best practices, have simply grown too complex -- too time-consuming -- to be performed well by elected volunteers. As it turns out, professional management brings with it a level of formality, a by-the-book respect for rules and regulations, which doesn't always sit well with lay people. This bureaucratic outlook begins to alter the tone of town government, leading, as we've seen this political season, to conflict with some citizens who feel common sense has been sacrificed in reverence for the letter of the law.
Our town manager and police chief take a certain pride in the professionalism of our current police force. Both have defended fines and conduct which have drawn criticism as consistent with town ordinance and state law. Both point out that our police force will soon receive national accreditation for their policies and practices. Chief Robinson, in a recent letter to the Valley News, pointedly noted that the current police force do not spend duty time surfing the web. I have no doubt the police have been directed, and have conducted themselves, consistent with their understanding of their duty. From that perspective, they must find some of the criticism leveled against them puzzling and offensive. I expect the national accreditation process may well vindicate the policies and practices our police have employed in the various incidents which have fueled the current controversy.
Behold the bureaucratic mindset. Our town manager and police chief have -- laudably I think -- identified professionalism and the objective measure of professionalism as primary goals in the conduct of their duties. Within that frame of reference, I'll bet we have an exemplary police force and I would be astounded if the national accreditation process concluded otherwise. The real question is whether national accreditation and the policies it embodies reflect the policing needs of a town such as ours. The answer, I'm afraid, is both yes and no.
Yes, because I recall a terrible incident of domestic violence some years ago which shook this town and exposed our police force of that time to a level of cold objective scrutiny for which it was wholly unprepared. Past and future victims -- seared by the experience -- have every reason to demand better protection and the highest standards of professionalism where it's at all conceivable those standards might prevent another incident. There's no proportionality to that demand. Some things are so awful we expect and authorize extreme measures to combat them. Our criminal laws have been written almost entirely in response to terrible crimes and at the behest of those left in their wake, so too, our regulations often reflect past accidents. There are truck weight laws because there have been terrible accidents with over-weighted trucks losing control. There are established policing strategies to combat loitering and petty acts because there is objective evidence that a more prominent police presence deters worse crimes. In light of the potential for bad things to happen and the simple fact police are often held accountable when bad things do happen, it's easy to understand the bureaucratic affection for a "by-the-book" approach to enforcement.
And yet, the answer is also surely no. No, because small towns and community itself are premised on a shared sense of proportionality, a common sense of how much is enough and what goes too far. There is simply no way a set of national standards, or even state laws, can reflect small town life in Norwich, Vermont. Certain policing methods -- fully consistent with national standards -- will inevitably rub some Norwich residents the wrong way.
There's a fundamental, unavoidable, tension between our rights as citizens and the enforcement of our laws; a tension as American as our Constitution and our rocky evolution as a democratic society. It would seem easy enough to engage our town manager and police chief in a dialogue seeking to balance a bureaucratic emphasis on professionalism with a democratic feel for small town culture. Apparently not. Instead of dialogue, we have ballot initiatives seeking to revoke the town manager structure and reform policing methods by eliminating officers and paring their budget with little regard shown for how we got here or what the consequences might be. Instead of working together to find a common ground on appropriate levels of enforcement and developing a common touch, we have accusations and counter-accusations questioning motives and arguing about who will lose their job instead of why their job is at risk in the first place.
Here's where judgment comes in. If every claim of overbearing Norwich police conduct I've read or heard this past year is true, then the critics have every right to be mad. If every attempt to raise these concerns with our town manager, the police chief, and individual selectboard members has been rebuffed in the manner reported, the critics have every right to be even madder. But even taking every charge as proven -- conceding the right to outrage -- that right still carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of acting in anger.
Will Norwich be a better place -- will our police force be more responsive -- with all administrative authority dumped back on the selectboard? Isn't this the same selectboard which reportedly has shown itself incapable or unwilling to address these offenses in the first place? Won't the next town committee convened to consider our administrative needs simply bemoan the destructive micromanagement of police staffing by warrant article even as it repeats the same litany of failures which prompted adoption of a town manager back in 2001? Do we really improve the job performance of a town employee by obliterating that employee's position? Do we really get better policing by giving voters a yes-or-no vote on the overall police budget every year? As retribution for past outrages, these warrant articles may prove sweet in the tasting, but galling on the stomach.
I don't know why Norwich needs to work out our differences with verbal and legal sledgehammers. I don't know how or why some pretty gifted politicians on our selectboard weren't able to dampen down this brush fire before it blazed out of control. The creation of a town manager has introduced a bureaucratic sensibility to town government and the creation of a professional fire chief will likely further the effect. The dissonance between a bureaucratic mindset and a small town sense of proportionality has triggered this latest fracas and it won't be the last. Given the clash of cultures between professional government and small town informality; between the necessity of law enforcement and the right to be left alone; given the legal limbo teenagers occupy where they are told they're too young to partake of adult amusements but punished as adults when they disobey, there will be future incidents.
The only solution is better judgment. The judgment to discern circumstances where literal enforcement of certain regulations is disproportionate to the infraction. The judgment to recognize the right of citizens to complain and provide the leadership which addresses the substance of those complaints without being deafened by their tone. The judgment to recognize there is a price in terms of bureaucratic formality we must accept if we expect a higher level of service and performance from town employees. The judgment to remember that every time we gird for battle against some other group in town, we make it harder to live together as a community.
What's right for Norwich in terms of policing, fire protection, and professional management? The right answer is to ask the question openly, with civility, and humbly, accepting that today's response may no longer fit tomorrow, so will need to be asked again soon. Our town manager and police force are town employees, subject to the direction and supervision of our elected selectboard. Their livelihoods and their sense of a job well done, being fallible human beings, depend upon effective direction and fair supervision. Warrant articles can't provide that, but it shouldn't take the threat of such articles to get people's attention. It's time to try something else.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Part One -- On Town Managers and Town Administrators
I confess bewilderment with the "debate" regarding our town manager and the proposed warrant article seeking to revoke his position. On the one hand, I believe the debate is beset with factual inaccuracies. On the other, I find the debate most telling for what it hasn't addressed. In this post I will touch on the former, concerning structural aspects of the town manager/town administrator debate. In a second post, I will address the latter, revisiting two broader concerns raised at the time we opted for a town manager which might illuminate the difficulties we face today.
Back in 2000, a petition circulated to create a town manager form of government. The warrant article which resulted was defeated at the 2001 Town Meeting with the general understanding that a town committee would research options to improve administration of town services. The "Town Administrative Options Committee" ("TAOC") undertook the task, issuing a report in late 2001 enumerating the administrative challenges faced by the town and weighing the various options to address them.
The TAOC report unanimously recommended adopting a town manager form of government and voters ratified that recommendation by a wide margin at the 2002 Town Meeting. The TAOC report premised its recommendations on the Selectboard's poor performance overseeing administration of town departments at that time. The report identified a tendency of some individual selectboard members to personify town government in their treatment of town employees and volunteers. We concluded that their advocacy of personal political agendas, including efforts to stymie the proposals of some town employees and departments perceived to be allied with other selectboard members, constituted an unacceptable intrusion of politics into what should be the professional administration of town business. Based on these findings, the Report concluded that a professional manager of some kind was essential for better administration overall.
Having determined that professional management was needed, the report turned to a detailed discussion of different types of professional management available under state law. Our Report clearly stated that, under Vermont law (24 V.S.A. §872), a selectboard may delegate aspects of its authority to a town administrator or, under 24 V.S.A. §1236, may effect a specific, wholesale, delegation of executive authority to a town manager. In practical terms, a town administrator granted broad powers by a selectboard might differ very little from a statutorily-defined position of town manager. This aspect of the Report is completely antithetical to Alison May's recent statement, in a February 18th letter to the Valley News, that the Norwich Selectboard "may not delegate any authority to [a town administrator];" a statement which frankly baffles me.
The TAOC ultimately recommended a town manager over a town administrator not -- as Alison suggests in that same letter -- because the selectboard's administrative burden under a town administrator would make policy making "difficult," but rather because the committee felt a professional manager needed the protection of a statutorily-defined job description against further meddling by individual selectboard members. We feared, and forthrightly stated, that a town administrator's selectboard-defined job description would be a perennial political football, undermining administrative coherence and consistency; ultimately leaving the town and her employees where we had started. On this basis alone, we preferred a town manager over a town administrator.
This is not to say a town manager is somehow above selectboard interference, or, for that matter, beyond selectboard control. Vermont law -- 24 V.S.A. §1233 -- provides that, "[i]n all matters he shall be subject to the direction and supervision and shall hold office at the will of such selectmen, who, by majority vote, may remove him at any time for cause."
Thus, just as the shift to a town manager was necessitated by dysfunctional selectboard administration of Norwich town affairs, it should be clear any concerns regarding a town manager's job performance ultimately rest with the "direction and supervision" of that manager provided by the selectboard. The TAOC itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the report notes,
"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."
Ominously, the TAOC report concludes,
"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."
Here is where this post ends and my second post begins.
Back in 2000, a petition circulated to create a town manager form of government. The warrant article which resulted was defeated at the 2001 Town Meeting with the general understanding that a town committee would research options to improve administration of town services. The "Town Administrative Options Committee" ("TAOC") undertook the task, issuing a report in late 2001 enumerating the administrative challenges faced by the town and weighing the various options to address them.
The TAOC report unanimously recommended adopting a town manager form of government and voters ratified that recommendation by a wide margin at the 2002 Town Meeting. The TAOC report premised its recommendations on the Selectboard's poor performance overseeing administration of town departments at that time. The report identified a tendency of some individual selectboard members to personify town government in their treatment of town employees and volunteers. We concluded that their advocacy of personal political agendas, including efforts to stymie the proposals of some town employees and departments perceived to be allied with other selectboard members, constituted an unacceptable intrusion of politics into what should be the professional administration of town business. Based on these findings, the Report concluded that a professional manager of some kind was essential for better administration overall.
Having determined that professional management was needed, the report turned to a detailed discussion of different types of professional management available under state law. Our Report clearly stated that, under Vermont law (24 V.S.A. §872), a selectboard may delegate aspects of its authority to a town administrator or, under 24 V.S.A. §1236, may effect a specific, wholesale, delegation of executive authority to a town manager. In practical terms, a town administrator granted broad powers by a selectboard might differ very little from a statutorily-defined position of town manager. This aspect of the Report is completely antithetical to Alison May's recent statement, in a February 18th letter to the Valley News, that the Norwich Selectboard "may not delegate any authority to [a town administrator];" a statement which frankly baffles me.
The TAOC ultimately recommended a town manager over a town administrator not -- as Alison suggests in that same letter -- because the selectboard's administrative burden under a town administrator would make policy making "difficult," but rather because the committee felt a professional manager needed the protection of a statutorily-defined job description against further meddling by individual selectboard members. We feared, and forthrightly stated, that a town administrator's selectboard-defined job description would be a perennial political football, undermining administrative coherence and consistency; ultimately leaving the town and her employees where we had started. On this basis alone, we preferred a town manager over a town administrator.
This is not to say a town manager is somehow above selectboard interference, or, for that matter, beyond selectboard control. Vermont law -- 24 V.S.A. §1233 -- provides that, "[i]n all matters he shall be subject to the direction and supervision and shall hold office at the will of such selectmen, who, by majority vote, may remove him at any time for cause."
Thus, just as the shift to a town manager was necessitated by dysfunctional selectboard administration of Norwich town affairs, it should be clear any concerns regarding a town manager's job performance ultimately rest with the "direction and supervision" of that manager provided by the selectboard. The TAOC itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the report notes,
"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."
Ominously, the TAOC report concludes,
"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."
Here is where this post ends and my second post begins.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Town Manager Deja Vu (Draft for Norwich Happenings)
Six short years ago, a petition circulated in town asking voters to consider switching to a town manager form of government. The petition received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for town meeting that year; but was subsequently defeated by voters. At the time, it was generally understood that such a momentous change in government required further study and, upon defeat of the article, a town committee was convened to review the matter in depth. Over the next six months, a committee of nine interviewed town employees and officials, sought input from a number of towns with town managers or town administrators, and reviewed the relevant state law governing town managers. In October, 2001, the committee submitted a 32-page final report to the selectboard unanimously recommending adoption of a town manager at the following town meeting.
This year, a petition bearing nearly 250 signatures was submitted asking voters to consider revoking the town manager structure in favor of a town administrator. The selectboard altered the language of the petition article so it now merely asks whether the voters wish the selectboard to consider creating another town committee to study "the appropriate form of government for Norwich." Whether one feels voters should have been allowed to decide the town manager question or prefers teh advisory article, it's worth dusting off the 2001 Report to understand how we got here and why. It is impractical to digest a thirty-two page report down to 3000 words, but several fundamental points are worth noting.
First, the 2001 Report explains that -- without a town manager or town administrator in place -- a selectboard must act as both the town legislature and implement the town's executive authority. The Report specifically recommended separating the town's legislative and executive authority to clarify lines of authority over town employees and prevent operational matters from becoming bogged down in policy debates. The Report repeatedly identified the intrusiveness of selectboard politics and the resultant lack of civility as exacerbating factors to the town's administrative challenges.
The Report further explains how an elected selectboard is ill-suited to management. By separating the legislative and executive functions, political debate is contained within an elected body while professional management and town employees are insulated from political interference with their duties. This allows management to develop real expertise in the complex fields of financial and personnel management and establishes more consistent execution of town policy. The volunteer nature of our selectboard and the rapid turnover of members through elections had historically undermined that expertise and consistency.
Recognizing the value in establishing more professional management over town affairs, the committee then considered whether that goal could best be achieved by a town manager or a town administrator. As the Report explains, the duties and authority of a town manager are set out in state statute whereas a town administrator's authority is defined by the job description developed by the town selectboard. The committee concluded that the statutory basis for town manager authority would further insulate professional management from political interference. The Report notes that the selectboard's ability to alter a town administrator's job description would likely tempt future selectboard to address management issues by altering the town administrator's job description rather than respecting the separation of authority the town needed. Consequently, the committee unanimously recommended a town manager with statutory authority to act rather than a town administrator who's authority would become an annual election issue subject to alteration by each successive selectboard.
The Report offers a cautionary note. The committee itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the Report notes,
"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."
Ominously, the Report concludes,
"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."
Overall, the 2001 Report suggests the decision to adopt a town manager structure promised to achieve administrative improvements, but could not guarantee the quality of the human beings hired or elected to maintain those changes over time. It's worth asking whether current complaints about town governance identify structural problems with the administration of town affairs or, rather, are ultimately matters of the personalities and management style of those in authority. If it is the former, then a new town committee may help identify further changes to improve town administration. If it is the latter, however, a town committee is powerless to assist what only elections can change.
This year, a petition bearing nearly 250 signatures was submitted asking voters to consider revoking the town manager structure in favor of a town administrator. The selectboard altered the language of the petition article so it now merely asks whether the voters wish the selectboard to consider creating another town committee to study "the appropriate form of government for Norwich." Whether one feels voters should have been allowed to decide the town manager question or prefers teh advisory article, it's worth dusting off the 2001 Report to understand how we got here and why. It is impractical to digest a thirty-two page report down to 3000 words, but several fundamental points are worth noting.
First, the 2001 Report explains that -- without a town manager or town administrator in place -- a selectboard must act as both the town legislature and implement the town's executive authority. The Report specifically recommended separating the town's legislative and executive authority to clarify lines of authority over town employees and prevent operational matters from becoming bogged down in policy debates. The Report repeatedly identified the intrusiveness of selectboard politics and the resultant lack of civility as exacerbating factors to the town's administrative challenges.
The Report further explains how an elected selectboard is ill-suited to management. By separating the legislative and executive functions, political debate is contained within an elected body while professional management and town employees are insulated from political interference with their duties. This allows management to develop real expertise in the complex fields of financial and personnel management and establishes more consistent execution of town policy. The volunteer nature of our selectboard and the rapid turnover of members through elections had historically undermined that expertise and consistency.
Recognizing the value in establishing more professional management over town affairs, the committee then considered whether that goal could best be achieved by a town manager or a town administrator. As the Report explains, the duties and authority of a town manager are set out in state statute whereas a town administrator's authority is defined by the job description developed by the town selectboard. The committee concluded that the statutory basis for town manager authority would further insulate professional management from political interference. The Report notes that the selectboard's ability to alter a town administrator's job description would likely tempt future selectboard to address management issues by altering the town administrator's job description rather than respecting the separation of authority the town needed. Consequently, the committee unanimously recommended a town manager with statutory authority to act rather than a town administrator who's authority would become an annual election issue subject to alteration by each successive selectboard.
The Report offers a cautionary note. The committee itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the Report notes,
"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."
Ominously, the Report concludes,
"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."
Overall, the 2001 Report suggests the decision to adopt a town manager structure promised to achieve administrative improvements, but could not guarantee the quality of the human beings hired or elected to maintain those changes over time. It's worth asking whether current complaints about town governance identify structural problems with the administration of town affairs or, rather, are ultimately matters of the personalities and management style of those in authority. If it is the former, then a new town committee may help identify further changes to improve town administration. If it is the latter, however, a town committee is powerless to assist what only elections can change.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Musings on Town Politics
Norwich is back on the front page once more. This time it's a wrangle over petition wording; what voters will be allowed to decide at Town Meeting; and the fate of our Town Manager. I'll confess the initial article -- in last Friday's Valley News -- elevated my blood pressure some, but I've managed to talk it down and thought I'd share the fruits of my internal debate.
First, some history.
Prior to 2002, this town was run by a select board acting as both legislature (passing ordinances and budgets) and as an executive (managing town department operations). As one might imagine the task was overwhelming. Rather than attempt to collectively manage departments, individual select board members were assigned as "liaisons" to individual departments as a way to divide up the task. Liaisons were to attend meetings and communicate with departments, sharing issues and information with their select board colleagues so collective decisions could be taken.
Results varied. Some departments languished beneath the radar; others effectively utilized their liaison as an advocate for their own interests -- a few becoming so closely identified with individual select board members that budget and policy decisions sometimes became a personal matter between select board members.
Around this same time, Norwich politics had taken a highly partisan tone with the loudest voices viewing most issues in factional terms of us-versus-them. Town departments and employees found themselves walking a narrow path to avoid being perceived as aligned with one faction or the other -- a fraught task where the liaison structure funneled most management communication through individual, often highly partisan, select board members.
Six years ago, amidst some particularly ugly and personal budget arguments at the select board, a frustrated observer organized a petition campaign asking voters to adopt a town manager form of town government. That petition led to an ad hoc town committee which thoroughly examined the town's administrative needs and state law governing town managers and town administrators. The committee contacted a number of Vermont towns to learn of their experience. The final report -- unanimously recommending a town manager -- addressed the pros and cons of each option of town government specifically in the context of our divisive politics. Norwich adopted a town manager form of government at the following town meeting and hired our first town manager in September 2002.
He lasted less than two years.
Our current embattled town manager is nearing a similar milestone.
So what's going on?
For one thing, few seem to have read the October 2001 final report. It's a large document but recommended reading for anyone who wishes to understand how we got here and our options going forward. The report specifically warns that a successful town manager-run town government will require a more restrained select board and greater civility from the townspeople. We've made some progress on both measures, but apparently not enough.
Whether we're talking town managers, class four roads, our police force, gateways, delinquent taxes, or wood-fired boilers, the public discussion seems to quickly elevate to a level of unintended self-parody which is good for Valley News sales, but hard to laugh at ourselves. I've done my fair share of pontificating over the years and, until recently, would have readily given both sides a public tongue-lashing for their roles in another Norwich teapot tempest. Honestly, I've grown tired of the relentless stream of episodes and tired of my own whining about them. Chastened by a look in the mirror, I'm finding some comfort in taking a more philosophical approach and offer these observations.
First, warrant article petitions are a very blunt instrument of government, but apparently an effective method of communication. Both the 2000 petition to adopt a town manager and our 2006 petition to abandon town managers misunderstood the statutory consequences should they succeed. State law requires a change in government almost immediately after such a petition is adopted at town meeting. Consequently, while both petitions were meant to break a political logjam and prompt debate on overall town governance, neither actually offer any time for that debate to occur. That said, the 2000 effort led indirectly to thoughtful and deliberate consideration of town governance and significant changes. Perhaps we're on a similar, indirect, path with the current petition.
Second, we all ought to wonder why such petitions are necessary in the first place. How is it that a town, and town government, of such modest size can require such forceful methods to engage discontent? While 250 signatures may be a small percentage of the town's population, they comprise one third to one quarter of our typical voter turnout and signify substantial disaffection with the status quo. One would think good management -- or at least savvy politicians -- would notice the wind change and respond. One would hope the regular business of town government would provide a forum for the discontent underlying the petition efforts; a forum for venting, being heard, and working through some of these matters without the unilateral winner-takes-all implications of petitions.
Stepping back a bit, it isn't hard to see why this must be so. People are busy, talk is cheap, and who's to say there's substantial discontent until you see how many signatures a petition receives. Norwich seems to host a disproportionate number of people accustomed to getting our own way. This slants our political discourse decidedly in favor of loud, self-certain expression. We're a community of squeaky wheels and there's only so much grease to go around. Under the circumstances, it's inevitable the prime greasers in Tracy Hall will catch some flak.
It may also simply be a fact that the attributes which prompt individuals to seek elected office and help them get elected are not necessarily conducive to good management. Good managers shun popularity contests, instead relying upon having a keen ear to the ground. So our elected representatives survive by riding the waves rather than understanding their source. In this instance, our select board can likely be relied upon to manage the short-term crisis of an awkward warrant article, but it's doubtful they even grasp the underlying causes. Similarly, our town manager will likely recalibrate his ear, tuning into a larger constituency than he has up to now, a bit more wary from the experience. It's certainly a messy way to govern ourselves but, apart from some bruised egos, it's a reasonably responsive system.
Is there any reason to believe a town assistant would fare any better than a town manager under these circumstances?
Which leads me to an uncomfortable suspicion. Perhaps these past eight years of faction and self-righteousness aren't the exception to a more civil state of affairs, but rather typify the new reality. Perhaps we're simply a small pond with a lot of aspiring big fish; a town which is now predominantly self-selected; a population with little, if any, cultural connection to the agrarian small-town houses and landscape we now occupy. Perhaps small town life in an affluent transplant community is really simply our national political and cultural existence writ small. If so, we ought to resign ourselves to the spectacle of a small, vocal minority tussling for power and the opportunity to use it to negate their opponents at every step. The tactics -- the absence of grace or humility in their application -- are a corrosive, gradually reducing democracy to a concept no more meaningful than the right to complain. That tussle, and our tolerance for it, are becoming the public face of this community, perhaps deservedly so. It's a harsh and chastening mirror.
First, some history.
Prior to 2002, this town was run by a select board acting as both legislature (passing ordinances and budgets) and as an executive (managing town department operations). As one might imagine the task was overwhelming. Rather than attempt to collectively manage departments, individual select board members were assigned as "liaisons" to individual departments as a way to divide up the task. Liaisons were to attend meetings and communicate with departments, sharing issues and information with their select board colleagues so collective decisions could be taken.
Results varied. Some departments languished beneath the radar; others effectively utilized their liaison as an advocate for their own interests -- a few becoming so closely identified with individual select board members that budget and policy decisions sometimes became a personal matter between select board members.
Around this same time, Norwich politics had taken a highly partisan tone with the loudest voices viewing most issues in factional terms of us-versus-them. Town departments and employees found themselves walking a narrow path to avoid being perceived as aligned with one faction or the other -- a fraught task where the liaison structure funneled most management communication through individual, often highly partisan, select board members.
Six years ago, amidst some particularly ugly and personal budget arguments at the select board, a frustrated observer organized a petition campaign asking voters to adopt a town manager form of town government. That petition led to an ad hoc town committee which thoroughly examined the town's administrative needs and state law governing town managers and town administrators. The committee contacted a number of Vermont towns to learn of their experience. The final report -- unanimously recommending a town manager -- addressed the pros and cons of each option of town government specifically in the context of our divisive politics. Norwich adopted a town manager form of government at the following town meeting and hired our first town manager in September 2002.
He lasted less than two years.
Our current embattled town manager is nearing a similar milestone.
So what's going on?
For one thing, few seem to have read the October 2001 final report. It's a large document but recommended reading for anyone who wishes to understand how we got here and our options going forward. The report specifically warns that a successful town manager-run town government will require a more restrained select board and greater civility from the townspeople. We've made some progress on both measures, but apparently not enough.
Whether we're talking town managers, class four roads, our police force, gateways, delinquent taxes, or wood-fired boilers, the public discussion seems to quickly elevate to a level of unintended self-parody which is good for Valley News sales, but hard to laugh at ourselves. I've done my fair share of pontificating over the years and, until recently, would have readily given both sides a public tongue-lashing for their roles in another Norwich teapot tempest. Honestly, I've grown tired of the relentless stream of episodes and tired of my own whining about them. Chastened by a look in the mirror, I'm finding some comfort in taking a more philosophical approach and offer these observations.
First, warrant article petitions are a very blunt instrument of government, but apparently an effective method of communication. Both the 2000 petition to adopt a town manager and our 2006 petition to abandon town managers misunderstood the statutory consequences should they succeed. State law requires a change in government almost immediately after such a petition is adopted at town meeting. Consequently, while both petitions were meant to break a political logjam and prompt debate on overall town governance, neither actually offer any time for that debate to occur. That said, the 2000 effort led indirectly to thoughtful and deliberate consideration of town governance and significant changes. Perhaps we're on a similar, indirect, path with the current petition.
Second, we all ought to wonder why such petitions are necessary in the first place. How is it that a town, and town government, of such modest size can require such forceful methods to engage discontent? While 250 signatures may be a small percentage of the town's population, they comprise one third to one quarter of our typical voter turnout and signify substantial disaffection with the status quo. One would think good management -- or at least savvy politicians -- would notice the wind change and respond. One would hope the regular business of town government would provide a forum for the discontent underlying the petition efforts; a forum for venting, being heard, and working through some of these matters without the unilateral winner-takes-all implications of petitions.
Stepping back a bit, it isn't hard to see why this must be so. People are busy, talk is cheap, and who's to say there's substantial discontent until you see how many signatures a petition receives. Norwich seems to host a disproportionate number of people accustomed to getting our own way. This slants our political discourse decidedly in favor of loud, self-certain expression. We're a community of squeaky wheels and there's only so much grease to go around. Under the circumstances, it's inevitable the prime greasers in Tracy Hall will catch some flak.
It may also simply be a fact that the attributes which prompt individuals to seek elected office and help them get elected are not necessarily conducive to good management. Good managers shun popularity contests, instead relying upon having a keen ear to the ground. So our elected representatives survive by riding the waves rather than understanding their source. In this instance, our select board can likely be relied upon to manage the short-term crisis of an awkward warrant article, but it's doubtful they even grasp the underlying causes. Similarly, our town manager will likely recalibrate his ear, tuning into a larger constituency than he has up to now, a bit more wary from the experience. It's certainly a messy way to govern ourselves but, apart from some bruised egos, it's a reasonably responsive system.
Is there any reason to believe a town assistant would fare any better than a town manager under these circumstances?
Which leads me to an uncomfortable suspicion. Perhaps these past eight years of faction and self-righteousness aren't the exception to a more civil state of affairs, but rather typify the new reality. Perhaps we're simply a small pond with a lot of aspiring big fish; a town which is now predominantly self-selected; a population with little, if any, cultural connection to the agrarian small-town houses and landscape we now occupy. Perhaps small town life in an affluent transplant community is really simply our national political and cultural existence writ small. If so, we ought to resign ourselves to the spectacle of a small, vocal minority tussling for power and the opportunity to use it to negate their opponents at every step. The tactics -- the absence of grace or humility in their application -- are a corrosive, gradually reducing democracy to a concept no more meaningful than the right to complain. That tussle, and our tolerance for it, are becoming the public face of this community, perhaps deservedly so. It's a harsh and chastening mirror.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Draft Save the Entrance Fund FAQ's
While agnostic about the effort to purchase the gateway property from Simpson Development, I lent a hand to the group in their fundraising efforts. Here is an initial draft of FAQ's. The Save the Entrance Fund group felt went a bit too far and the final version sent to prospective donors was substantially edited:
Frequently Asked Questions - Save the Entrance Fund
“Who are you and why do you want my money?”
We're your neighbors, dismayed by the prospect of a very large five-townhouse complex dominating the entrance to town for our lifetimes and beyond. Simpson Development Corp. (“SDC”) has offered us one last chance to conserve this parcel, but the selling price is $580,000and the deadline is March 1st. If we are able to purchase this property, the open field will be preserved; the woods behind and below it maintained for public trails. If we fail, future residents will wonder how we ever allowed this to happen.
“$580,000 is an outrageous price for an empty field! Are you crazy?”
We're not just buying an empty field. SDC bought the empty field at about half this price a few years ago. We're buying the field and SDC's right to build a 120' x 50' x 35' structure comprised of five three-story townhouses on that field; a structure which will dominate the entrance to town for our lifetimes and some time beyond. Is it worth the price?
Try this: Next time you drive into town, consider the Burton House building at the corner of Elm and Main – the building that houses the wine store, Allechante, Northern Lights Wool, etc. The entire Burton House structure is roughly the same dimensions as the planned SDC townhouses. Now imagine a structure that size plunked down on this empty field, looming over us all as we come and go from town. Will $580,000 seem like an outrageous price once these townhouses are built?
“Why didn't the Town buy this for half the price when they had a chance?”
Hindsight's 20/20. No one clamoured to buy this property because no one imagined such a large project would ever be built there. We should not assume the open land we now enjoy will remain open. We need to act while we can to conserve these open spaces or accept the additional cost in hesitating.
“How did the Town ever allow this to happen?”
The Town didn't allow this to happen. In fact, short of raising taxes to buy the property, it's hard to imagine what more the Town could have done to prevent this. Nearly a decade ago, our Conservation Commission identified this parcel, and several other open spaces in town, as scenic resources worth regulating so their scenic attributes weren't lost forever. Our Planning Commission agreed and incorporated measures to protect these parcels into our subdivision regulations. Our Selectboard reviewed these changes in a series of public meetings and adopted them in 2001.
When SDC submitted their application, our Development Review Board conducted a number of public hearings to review the project. The DRB issued a unanimous 13-page decision specifying how SDC's plans run afoul of our subdivision regulations. SDC appealed that ruling to the state Environmental Court and our Selectboard spent more than $17,000 defending the DRB decision on appeal. A single judge -- without reviewing the DRB's written decision -- ruled in favor of SDC.
Similarly, when the SDC proposal was submitted for Act 250 review, our Planning Commission, Conservation Commission, and Selectboard all urged the District Commission to follow the DRB decision and deny the permit. The Act 250 District Commission ruled that they were bound to follow the Environmental Court's earlier decision and granted the permit.
So here we are -- nearly out of options -- simply trying to effect a policy supported by every town body with authority to regulate or review this project. The Valley News, and other self-appointed arbiters of common sense, think this is simply a matter of personal taste. They're wrong. This community, through the authority bestowed upon it by the laws of this state, and subject to open public review throughout , has tried its level best to regulate development on this parcel for the common benefit of all present and future residents. Those who take issue with that goal take issue with the result of a public and democratic process. Our fundraising effort, despite the catcalls, is nothing less.
“Wouldn't this money be better spent on affordable housing?”
This is a bizarre criticism. First of all, at the time our fundraising effort began, the Agway property was under contract for purchase as an affordable housing development. Our fundraising was never to the exclusion of fundraising for affordable housing or any other worthy cause. The town has an affordable housing committee which is considering a campaign to raise funds for just that purpose. The fact the Agway property fell through doesn't appoint us to replace the affordable housing committee or run their fundraising effort. Public spirit, community, and charitable giving aren't zero-sum efforts. Does every dollar Jim Kenyon spent on his SUV or gave to his alma mater mean a dollar less given to local charities?
The enemy of charity is not competition among worthy causes, but rather the cynicism that characterizes good intentions as sanctimony. We have no doubt many contributors to our effort will also contribute to an affordable housing committee effort and other worthy causes in the area.
“I won't give a penny to Simpson Development! It's like giving in to blackmail!”
Did the previous owner of your house blackmail you into buying by putting it on the market where it might be sold to someone else? Whatever one may think of SDC's townhouse scheme, they're in the business of developing property and selling that property for a profit. Don't begrudge SDC for seeing an opportunity no one else saw. They've risked hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase, permit, and litigate their right to develop “an empty field.” It would be wonderful if SDC decided to give the parcel to the town for free, but that's not going to happen. Take a moment and ask yourself whether, driving past these townhouses a year from now, you'll still think this was ultimately a matter of whether you liked SDC.
“Do you really think you'll raise the full amount by the March 1st deadline?”
We simply don't know. When SDC approached us last fall, we had no bargaining power. We'll have more with every dollar we raise. So far, we've received strong support from a wide range of townspeople despite some very negative press. It's the final stretch and our success depends on your participation.
“What happens to my contribution if we don't raise enough to buy the parcel?”
All donations are made to a designated fund held by our Conservation Commission. If we fall short, we'll offer donors the option to shift their donations to the Conservation Commission's general conservation fund. Otherwise, their donations will be refunded.
“Is my donation tax-deductible?”
Yes, all donations made to the Fund are fully deductible.
Frequently Asked Questions - Save the Entrance Fund
“Who are you and why do you want my money?”
We're your neighbors, dismayed by the prospect of a very large five-townhouse complex dominating the entrance to town for our lifetimes and beyond. Simpson Development Corp. (“SDC”) has offered us one last chance to conserve this parcel, but the selling price is $580,000and the deadline is March 1st. If we are able to purchase this property, the open field will be preserved; the woods behind and below it maintained for public trails. If we fail, future residents will wonder how we ever allowed this to happen.
“$580,000 is an outrageous price for an empty field! Are you crazy?”
We're not just buying an empty field. SDC bought the empty field at about half this price a few years ago. We're buying the field and SDC's right to build a 120' x 50' x 35' structure comprised of five three-story townhouses on that field; a structure which will dominate the entrance to town for our lifetimes and some time beyond. Is it worth the price?
Try this: Next time you drive into town, consider the Burton House building at the corner of Elm and Main – the building that houses the wine store, Allechante, Northern Lights Wool, etc. The entire Burton House structure is roughly the same dimensions as the planned SDC townhouses. Now imagine a structure that size plunked down on this empty field, looming over us all as we come and go from town. Will $580,000 seem like an outrageous price once these townhouses are built?
“Why didn't the Town buy this for half the price when they had a chance?”
Hindsight's 20/20. No one clamoured to buy this property because no one imagined such a large project would ever be built there. We should not assume the open land we now enjoy will remain open. We need to act while we can to conserve these open spaces or accept the additional cost in hesitating.
“How did the Town ever allow this to happen?”
The Town didn't allow this to happen. In fact, short of raising taxes to buy the property, it's hard to imagine what more the Town could have done to prevent this. Nearly a decade ago, our Conservation Commission identified this parcel, and several other open spaces in town, as scenic resources worth regulating so their scenic attributes weren't lost forever. Our Planning Commission agreed and incorporated measures to protect these parcels into our subdivision regulations. Our Selectboard reviewed these changes in a series of public meetings and adopted them in 2001.
When SDC submitted their application, our Development Review Board conducted a number of public hearings to review the project. The DRB issued a unanimous 13-page decision specifying how SDC's plans run afoul of our subdivision regulations. SDC appealed that ruling to the state Environmental Court and our Selectboard spent more than $17,000 defending the DRB decision on appeal. A single judge -- without reviewing the DRB's written decision -- ruled in favor of SDC.
Similarly, when the SDC proposal was submitted for Act 250 review, our Planning Commission, Conservation Commission, and Selectboard all urged the District Commission to follow the DRB decision and deny the permit. The Act 250 District Commission ruled that they were bound to follow the Environmental Court's earlier decision and granted the permit.
So here we are -- nearly out of options -- simply trying to effect a policy supported by every town body with authority to regulate or review this project. The Valley News, and other self-appointed arbiters of common sense, think this is simply a matter of personal taste. They're wrong. This community, through the authority bestowed upon it by the laws of this state, and subject to open public review throughout , has tried its level best to regulate development on this parcel for the common benefit of all present and future residents. Those who take issue with that goal take issue with the result of a public and democratic process. Our fundraising effort, despite the catcalls, is nothing less.
“Wouldn't this money be better spent on affordable housing?”
This is a bizarre criticism. First of all, at the time our fundraising effort began, the Agway property was under contract for purchase as an affordable housing development. Our fundraising was never to the exclusion of fundraising for affordable housing or any other worthy cause. The town has an affordable housing committee which is considering a campaign to raise funds for just that purpose. The fact the Agway property fell through doesn't appoint us to replace the affordable housing committee or run their fundraising effort. Public spirit, community, and charitable giving aren't zero-sum efforts. Does every dollar Jim Kenyon spent on his SUV or gave to his alma mater mean a dollar less given to local charities?
The enemy of charity is not competition among worthy causes, but rather the cynicism that characterizes good intentions as sanctimony. We have no doubt many contributors to our effort will also contribute to an affordable housing committee effort and other worthy causes in the area.
“I won't give a penny to Simpson Development! It's like giving in to blackmail!”
Did the previous owner of your house blackmail you into buying by putting it on the market where it might be sold to someone else? Whatever one may think of SDC's townhouse scheme, they're in the business of developing property and selling that property for a profit. Don't begrudge SDC for seeing an opportunity no one else saw. They've risked hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase, permit, and litigate their right to develop “an empty field.” It would be wonderful if SDC decided to give the parcel to the town for free, but that's not going to happen. Take a moment and ask yourself whether, driving past these townhouses a year from now, you'll still think this was ultimately a matter of whether you liked SDC.
“Do you really think you'll raise the full amount by the March 1st deadline?”
We simply don't know. When SDC approached us last fall, we had no bargaining power. We'll have more with every dollar we raise. So far, we've received strong support from a wide range of townspeople despite some very negative press. It's the final stretch and our success depends on your participation.
“What happens to my contribution if we don't raise enough to buy the parcel?”
All donations are made to a designated fund held by our Conservation Commission. If we fall short, we'll offer donors the option to shift their donations to the Conservation Commission's general conservation fund. Otherwise, their donations will be refunded.
“Is my donation tax-deductible?”
Yes, all donations made to the Fund are fully deductible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)