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.