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.