big brother (Norwich ListServ)

I've read with interest the various opinions on the license plate reader acquisition and can't resist sharing my own two cents. 

First, thanks to Chief Robinson for making the proposal public and braving the dust up that has resulted.  Whatever one may think about license plate readers, we should all recognize the righteous tone of public debate itself can become a disincentive to transparency.  Chief Robinson has resisted the temptation to "ask forgiveness later" and forthrightly put this before the townspeople.  He deserves our thanks and encouragement to continue to favor transparency over expediency.

Second, although we get chided for our unseemly zest for controversy, the Norwich listserv protagonists are doing a public service to all readers by stirring the pot and expressing themselves.  I had never heard of LPRs or considered the privacy implications until these posts started flooding in.  I may not agree with some/most of the posts, but I appreciate the viewpoints and value the debate. 

To some degree, whether Norwich puts in place a license plate reader is irrelevant.  We can be fairly confident some neighboring towns, state and federal law enforcement are using LPRs and, as the cost of these units declines, the use will only become more widespread.  For those who fear the criminal intentions of their fellow citizens more than they fear the authoritarian tendencies of government, that's probably a good thing. 

For those who are more concerned that these technologies will be abused by law enforcement -- and face it, there will abuses be some law enforcement elements somewhere in this country -- will vocal resistance to LPRs here in Norwich, in some small part, help keep big brother at bay?  I don't know, but vocal vigilance regarding personal liberties is itself a healthy habit to encourage. 

The recent public tussle regarding Hartford police practices is a good example.  While efforts to have those practices publicly repudiated -- and the supporting records made public -- have been rejected by the Attorney General and VT Supreme Court, the net effect upon Hartford police has probably been positive.  Competent professionals adjust to new realities.  It's fair to say Hartford police are viewed more skeptically today than they were three years ago and, if that matters to those police officers, they will critique their own procedures with an eye to restoring trust.  Without agitation from the Valley News and civil libertarians, those criticized practices become habits and dire abuses ensue, to everyone's discredit. 

Scylla and Charybdis (Norwich Listserv)

Don McCabe's jocular post (quoted at bottom) aside, a Town Manager is an administrator.

From our 2001 report recommending adoption of a town manager structure:

The towns we surveyed that ran best—and in which satisfaction with the structure seemed to be highest—all had the same characteristic: Selectboard members were content to leave day-to-day administrative decision-making to the administrator or manager. This is not an easy state of affairs to maintain, and it may be especially difficult in Norwich, given the board’s tradition of hands-on authority. A town managed by a chief administrative officer who lacks Selectboard support, is constantly second-guessed by individual Selectboard members, or whose authority is undermined by Selectboard interference may well be worse off than one with no professional administrator at all.

As we talked with other towns about how they do things, we were struck by the fact that some are quite happy with their structure, while others have switched from one form to another—and, in a few cases, back again—as they search for the perfect governing blueprint. This suggests to us that there is no perfect blueprint; any structure might work, given the right alignment of personalities, politics and needs.

We are quite aware, then, that what has worked in other towns will not necessarily work for Norwich. One thing we can say for certain, though, is that no change will work unless it clarifies lines of authority within town government. Even then, it will take more than a statutorily defined job description to do so. Switching to a town manager will require the Selectboard to change its style of operation dramatically, and the townspeople of Norwich to respect the new structure. As a committee, we have become convinced that town government can improve under a better administrative structure. But we are equally convinced that end-runs around the manager by townspeople and political power plays by elected officials can sabotage even the best-designed structure. Whatever option we adopt, we hope the people of Norwich will give those charged with making it work all the support and encouragement they need to be successful.

Rereading this a decade (and several TM's) later, I think we understood the difficulty our political figures would have restraining their own authority, but I think we overlooked two crucial ingredients.

First, a town manager must also show real constraint. They need to clearly identify -- for themselves and the selectboard on every issue -- where they see the boundary between their own authority and that of the selectboard. Both parties need to openly revisit their understanding of those boundaries whenever controversies occur. Without that open, on-going, dialogue the parties and townspeople inevitably jump to conclusions about who does what and how. There is no perfect blueprint, so honest, public, discussion is our best alternative.

I believe the unfortunate unravelling of Neil's predecessor's tenure might have been avoided if he had done a better job articulating his own understanding of his authority and if the selectboard had tried to address these disagreements in public session. Given the vociferous conduct of a group of citizens during this period, rational discourse in public session may have seemed too far-fetched, but frank recognition of the inevitable tensions between town managers and selectboards would have been better than another round of factional finger-pointing.

Neil Fulton is uniquely suited to recognize the inevitable tensions and work through those tensions constructively. As a selectboard member, Neil drafted the committee charge for our "Town Administrative Needs" review and was Chair of the selectboard at the time we completed our report. Neil has put in decades of service to the town -- largely in an administrative capacity -- often concerning regulatory minutiae that most of us never notice, but need doing nonetheless. Neil's been on both sides of the selectboard table and, appears to me, to possess the humility and wisdom of experience to continue to learn in the job, so I'm optimistic.

That said, the other crucial ingredient to a successful town manager I believe we overlooked is this: A town manager must raise above -- and remain beneath -- town politics.

As an administrator, the town manager is unelected meaning the typical pressure release mechanisms for disgruntled citizens -- "vote the bums out" -- are not available. Where controversy looms, the town manager should defer to the political process for sorting out controversy before acting. Otherwise, the town manager becomes the campaign issue. While this may slow the administrative process at times, a strong administrator does not operate on an annual election cycle so should appreciate the importance of developing consensus over expediency. A successful town manager will see significant selectboard membership turnover during their tenure, underscoring the risk in aligning oneself too closely with any given selectboard member or majority.


- 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:50:01 -0400
From: don mccabe
Subject: [Norwich] HAIL TO OUR TOWN MANAGER, BUT...

Congratulations to Neil Fulton on becoming our permanent town manager.
Neil has worked tirelessly for Norwich over the years, his experience
is welcome and his skills are many. But he is not Norwich's Messiah.
The are challenges ahead and putting our faith in one leader to answer
all our needs would be a serious mistake.

Respectfully,

Don McCabe

Postal Pensions and Politics (Norwich ListServ)

Do we need a postal service? Has electronic communication really superseded the need for a national snail mail system? I have no idea.

I do know there's been enough change in the past twenty years to make all predictions for the next twenty years highly suspect.

Indeed, I find all the categorical statements blaming one side or another; pronouncing some clear understanding of future pension liabilities; and presuming an authoritative grasp of our current fiscal and economic struggles equally -- highly -- suspect.

I challenge any reader here to explain to us all how the pension liability actuarial calculations are done for several hundred thousand active and retired postal employees.

And then tell us why the most recent OPM actuarial calculations are more authoritative than those done five, ten and twenty years ago that either overstated or understated (depending upon your political constituency) current liabilities.

I do know many -- if not all -- private companies that still maintain defined benefit (pension) plans are currently facing federally-mandated additional pension payments spread over ten years -- standard federal pension funding practice -- because years of low interest rates have increased predicted pension liabilities for the future.

Most private-sector companies have shifted away from defined benefit (pension) plans to defined contribution (401(k)/403-type) plans precisely because these defined-benefit plans are an uncappable liability that stretches 75 years into the future.

As Stan Williams has pointed out here in the past regarding school budgets, defined benefits plans are still the norm for the public sector, in stark contrast to private sector trends.

In fact, the USPS has been trying to shut down their defined benefit plan in favor of a defined-contribution plan for some time. For political reasons, the USPS has not been able to garner congressional support for this change.

For those who think public sector unions are using their political influence to secure wages and benefits far beyond most private sector employees, the USPS is a poster child for overdue reform.

For those who think union critics and small-government fanatics are manufacturing a fiscal crisis to break public sector unions, the USPS is a poster child for political zealotry run amok.

For those of us who find both sides prone to overwrought rhetoric; for those of us weary of having complicated, genuinely difficult policy issues painted black-and-white, this is all pretty depressing.