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.