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?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)