I've received several thoughtful comments from individuals I respect who felt I've gone too far in singling out our Town Manager by name and naming the proposed tower after him. Respecting their opinions -- and to some degree sharing their discomfort -- I want to try to explain my thinking in crossing this line.
I've spent nearly a year now explaining my reasons for opposing this tower so I won't revisit those arguments here, but please visit my blog -- beginning at http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-norwich-listserv.html -- if you still think this is all about abutters and NIMBYism. In those two dozen posts, I've tried my best to give credit where credit is due, but also sought accountability for decisions and factual representations that don't hold up.
Nor do I take lightly the purpose of this tower. I've listened to our emergency service department heads describe the risks involved where broadcast communications break down. Five years ago, my brother-in-law suffered a brain aneurysm swimming beside me at the Norwich Pool. My wife had to drive up Brigham Hill to get adequate signal to call an ambulance. I know the desperation and fear of not being able to reach help and the immense relief as those flashing lights finally appear.
So I support an emergency services communications tower in town. I would even support this particular tower proposal if I thought it reflected an honest effort to respect town institutions; institutions created to ensure that development and major infrastructure reflect the broader goals of our town rather than the narrow concerns of any single individual. When, as here, that individual is an unelected administrator serving at the pleasure of our Selectboard; authorized to contractually bind the town and controlling the flow of information necessary to assess his decision-making; the question is not a matter of personality but of accountability.
As I'll set out at length below, we are not dealing with a generic Town Manager here. In asserting his personal expertise as authoritative on numerous occasions, this Town Manager has made that expertise a matter of contention and a central question of whether he deserves the deference shown by this Selectboard in this and future matters. If he is going to insist on his predetermined outcome -- damn the torpedoes -- then he should be more than willing to take ownership of the result. Most importantly, if this town is going to make the most of this Town Manager, we need to be honest about his strengths and weaknesses.
I've now stewed over this long enough to think I have the narrative down pretty well:
Go to http://norwich.vt.us/bid-documents-for-communications-systems-upgrades/ and click on the link there. You'll receive a 36-page RFP that I view as a real credit to our current Town Manager. This document is the stuff of administrative government; this is how bureaucracies speak to one another and how grants are won. Spend any time reviewing our Town Manager's work on administrative documents such as these and you quickly realize we have a highly capable and proficient administrative professional in this office. As I've stated elsewhere, his success securing grants for this tower has already repaid his 2012 salary several times over. He knows the game, he knows the lingo, and he gets the job done - - no question.
But there's another story to that 36-page RFP and I'm afraid it may be the price in having a bureaucratic dynamo in our corner.
The lead times for grant applications and the complexity in coordinating RFP's with neighboring towns don't leave a lot of room for deliberation, particularly for messy public deliberation that might derail the "Program." In this case, the Program is a 198' emergency communications tower above the Town Garage. All the specifics of the Program were finalized sometime last autumn. When unveiled last December, it was essentially a finished product going through the motions of public review. To be fair to our Town Manager and a majority of Selectboard members, I believe they felt the public safety need so blatantly obvious and important that they simply did not imagine the level or basis of opposition they found. I don't believe there was any intention to act by stealth or hide something from public view; they just thought this was a no-brainer and public review would be routine. Unfortunately, for all of us involved in this controversy, the Program didn't account for significant deliberation so the time to discuss its finer points had already passed before it was presented.
While I credit his effort, I fault this Town Manager for failing to do the homework necessary to provide for alternatives if unforeseen issues arose with his chosen site. I fault this Selectboard for failing to ask for alternative sites, if only as a basis for assessing the chosen site. As I've argued strenuously elsewhere, the Program raises really troublesome regulatory and policy issues issues, some of which were apparent as soon as it was unveiled. These issues only emerge through dialogue, through asking for other perspectives with some intention to actually listen to the responses. That hasn't happened here.
Instead, to keep the Program on track, this Town Manager has been forced to maneuver around opposition in ways which, I feel, both exceed the proper role of a statutory Town Manager and place this individual's personal credibility and judgment squarely at the center of any serious debate about building this specific tower. The decision to place his personal credibility on the line was his and his alone:
- This Town Manager decided to publicly represent a 2010 draft feasibility study as a comprehensive engineering study demonstrating his chosen site to be the best site -- among several studied -- for this tower when, in fact, the 2010 study makes no such claim. Whatever his motives, it meant the Capital Facilities Committee and Selectboard were given a take-it-or-leave-it choice between this site and some undefined fiscal and regulatory abyss. This same lack of options has been cited by Selectboard members -- "there is no other option on the table" -- throughout for justifying sticking with the Program despite the concerns.
- When asked to consider a more thorough engineering review of potential sites consistent with telecommunications industry practice and our zoning regulations, this Town Manager has simply refused, claiming his personal engineering expertise makes such a study unnecessary. Rather than addressing a reasonable request on its merits, this Town Manager turned the question of undertaking a more extensive engineering review into a Selectboard vote of confidence on his judgment.
- This Town Manager has consistently argued that any other location for this tower, even if capable of equivalent coverage, would be prohibitively expensive due to the cost of acquiring the land to site the tower. He has maintained this argument, despite the widespread industry practice of leasing land for telecommunications towers (and leased land here in Norwich for the Verizon tower), and trotted out this red herring again as recently as September 7th to underscore the possible risks in wavering from the Program.
- As recently as the June 20th Public Forum, in response to citizen concerns about broadcast intensity from a tower proposed for a residential neighborhood, this Town Manager gave his personal assurance this tower -- unlike a cell tower -- would transmit at low intensity on an infrequent basis. By July 11th, this Town Manager was recommending VTel own and operate this same tower for their 24/7 broadband transmissions and any co-located 24/7 cellular transmitters VTel might negotiate with other carriers.
- At the July 5th Capital Facilities Committee meeting minutes, this Town Manager and Zoning Administrator outlined the local permitting process for this tower through our DRB and Act 250, stating the DRB would "hold a hearing Thursday, July 19, on the proposed tower. . . . Fulton said there had never been an intention of bypassing the DRB process." Less than a week later, they announced their proposal to avoid local permitting in favor of a 248A Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board.
- At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford. An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement.
And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation. See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf
A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs. The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers. And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.
The difference between honestly assessing the extension option and categorically foreclosing that option on his personal authority is the difference between advising the town on our options and managing the town towards a single preferred option. These examples -- and many others I've left out -- demonstrate a pattern of deflecting substantive questions about the Program through representations of fact made on this Town Manager's personal authority which lose their luster under scrutiny. Now, I'm well aware that a majority of the Selectboard (and, perhaps, a majority of the town's voters) feel the end justifies the means in this instance. I don't and, for all the reasons I've laid out elsewhere, I find this manner of management -- of being managed -- a regrettable new phase in our small town democracy.
Nor is my purpose to tear down this individual Town Manager through personal attacks or otherwise. On the contrary, I insist on his accountability because I expect he will be our Town Manager for years to come. If we're going to make this Town Manager thing work in this town, with this individual, I believe we have to be more forthright in questioning his assumptions and exploring his view of the relevant facts. He's got the smarts and the industry to make good use of those questions and his work product will be the better for it. Given his management style, and his past history within town politics, I don't think this will be the last controversy of his tenure. Active Selectboard and committee oversight that pushes him to consult opposing viewpoints before drawing his lines in the sand are our best chance to make this Town Manager a success both personally and for the town he serves. I sincerely hope this unfortunate dispute will be a learning experience for town leadership, that they will more cautiously scrutinize each future "Program" up front so we don't again spend months learning the hard lesson the answer was settled in his mind well before the question was asked.
So is it fair to single out an individual town official by name under these circumstances?
I think so. Given the management style he's demonstrated in pursuit of this Program it should be clear by now this tower in concept, placement, and management, is thoroughly his handiwork, for both good and bad. In this respect, I feel, without vindictiveness or mockery, this tower is a fitting monument to, and necessary reminder of, the deeply alloyed positives and negatives of this Town Manager's way of doing business. For these reasons, I cannot imagine a more appropriate name for it.
I've spent nearly a year now explaining my reasons for opposing this tower so I won't revisit those arguments here, but please visit my blog -- beginning at http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-norwich-listserv.html -- if you still think this is all about abutters and NIMBYism. In those two dozen posts, I've tried my best to give credit where credit is due, but also sought accountability for decisions and factual representations that don't hold up.
Nor do I take lightly the purpose of this tower. I've listened to our emergency service department heads describe the risks involved where broadcast communications break down. Five years ago, my brother-in-law suffered a brain aneurysm swimming beside me at the Norwich Pool. My wife had to drive up Brigham Hill to get adequate signal to call an ambulance. I know the desperation and fear of not being able to reach help and the immense relief as those flashing lights finally appear.
So I support an emergency services communications tower in town. I would even support this particular tower proposal if I thought it reflected an honest effort to respect town institutions; institutions created to ensure that development and major infrastructure reflect the broader goals of our town rather than the narrow concerns of any single individual. When, as here, that individual is an unelected administrator serving at the pleasure of our Selectboard; authorized to contractually bind the town and controlling the flow of information necessary to assess his decision-making; the question is not a matter of personality but of accountability.
As I'll set out at length below, we are not dealing with a generic Town Manager here. In asserting his personal expertise as authoritative on numerous occasions, this Town Manager has made that expertise a matter of contention and a central question of whether he deserves the deference shown by this Selectboard in this and future matters. If he is going to insist on his predetermined outcome -- damn the torpedoes -- then he should be more than willing to take ownership of the result. Most importantly, if this town is going to make the most of this Town Manager, we need to be honest about his strengths and weaknesses.
I've now stewed over this long enough to think I have the narrative down pretty well:
Go to http://norwich.vt.us/bid-documents-for-communications-systems-upgrades/ and click on the link there. You'll receive a 36-page RFP that I view as a real credit to our current Town Manager. This document is the stuff of administrative government; this is how bureaucracies speak to one another and how grants are won. Spend any time reviewing our Town Manager's work on administrative documents such as these and you quickly realize we have a highly capable and proficient administrative professional in this office. As I've stated elsewhere, his success securing grants for this tower has already repaid his 2012 salary several times over. He knows the game, he knows the lingo, and he gets the job done - - no question.
But there's another story to that 36-page RFP and I'm afraid it may be the price in having a bureaucratic dynamo in our corner.
The lead times for grant applications and the complexity in coordinating RFP's with neighboring towns don't leave a lot of room for deliberation, particularly for messy public deliberation that might derail the "Program." In this case, the Program is a 198' emergency communications tower above the Town Garage. All the specifics of the Program were finalized sometime last autumn. When unveiled last December, it was essentially a finished product going through the motions of public review. To be fair to our Town Manager and a majority of Selectboard members, I believe they felt the public safety need so blatantly obvious and important that they simply did not imagine the level or basis of opposition they found. I don't believe there was any intention to act by stealth or hide something from public view; they just thought this was a no-brainer and public review would be routine. Unfortunately, for all of us involved in this controversy, the Program didn't account for significant deliberation so the time to discuss its finer points had already passed before it was presented.
While I credit his effort, I fault this Town Manager for failing to do the homework necessary to provide for alternatives if unforeseen issues arose with his chosen site. I fault this Selectboard for failing to ask for alternative sites, if only as a basis for assessing the chosen site. As I've argued strenuously elsewhere, the Program raises really troublesome regulatory and policy issues issues, some of which were apparent as soon as it was unveiled. These issues only emerge through dialogue, through asking for other perspectives with some intention to actually listen to the responses. That hasn't happened here.
Instead, to keep the Program on track, this Town Manager has been forced to maneuver around opposition in ways which, I feel, both exceed the proper role of a statutory Town Manager and place this individual's personal credibility and judgment squarely at the center of any serious debate about building this specific tower. The decision to place his personal credibility on the line was his and his alone:
- This Town Manager decided to publicly represent a 2010 draft feasibility study as a comprehensive engineering study demonstrating his chosen site to be the best site -- among several studied -- for this tower when, in fact, the 2010 study makes no such claim. Whatever his motives, it meant the Capital Facilities Committee and Selectboard were given a take-it-or-leave-it choice between this site and some undefined fiscal and regulatory abyss. This same lack of options has been cited by Selectboard members -- "there is no other option on the table" -- throughout for justifying sticking with the Program despite the concerns.
- When asked to consider a more thorough engineering review of potential sites consistent with telecommunications industry practice and our zoning regulations, this Town Manager has simply refused, claiming his personal engineering expertise makes such a study unnecessary. Rather than addressing a reasonable request on its merits, this Town Manager turned the question of undertaking a more extensive engineering review into a Selectboard vote of confidence on his judgment.
- This Town Manager has consistently argued that any other location for this tower, even if capable of equivalent coverage, would be prohibitively expensive due to the cost of acquiring the land to site the tower. He has maintained this argument, despite the widespread industry practice of leasing land for telecommunications towers (and leased land here in Norwich for the Verizon tower), and trotted out this red herring again as recently as September 7th to underscore the possible risks in wavering from the Program.
- As recently as the June 20th Public Forum, in response to citizen concerns about broadcast intensity from a tower proposed for a residential neighborhood, this Town Manager gave his personal assurance this tower -- unlike a cell tower -- would transmit at low intensity on an infrequent basis. By July 11th, this Town Manager was recommending VTel own and operate this same tower for their 24/7 broadband transmissions and any co-located 24/7 cellular transmitters VTel might negotiate with other carriers.
- At the July 5th Capital Facilities Committee meeting minutes, this Town Manager and Zoning Administrator outlined the local permitting process for this tower through our DRB and Act 250, stating the DRB would "hold a hearing Thursday, July 19, on the proposed tower. . . . Fulton said there had never been an intention of bypassing the DRB process." Less than a week later, they announced their proposal to avoid local permitting in favor of a 248A Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board.
- At the September 12th Selectboard meeting to consider seeking an FCC extension to allow time for a more thorough review of our options, this Town Manager stated categorically that an FCC extension is pointless because our transmitters are located on towers in Hanover and Hartford. An FCC extension for us, he claimed, would therefore place both Hanover and Hartford in violation of their FCC narrow-banding requirement.
And yet First Student, the national school bus company, received an FCC extension last Spring that includes frequencies transmitting from more than 100 different call signs owned by municipalities or private telecommunications companies who aren't deemed to be in violation. See FCC extension, esp. footnote 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1227A1.pdf
A call to FCC counsel confirms that the FCC licenses -- and extends licenses for -- transmission frequencies by call signs, regardless of the location or ownership of those call signs. The 2010 draft feasibility study itself outlines options for implementing Norwich-only frequencies to improve existing wide-band and future narrow-band reception on existing towers. And yet public debate of the extension option is reduced to a single categorical statement it can't be done.
The difference between honestly assessing the extension option and categorically foreclosing that option on his personal authority is the difference between advising the town on our options and managing the town towards a single preferred option. These examples -- and many others I've left out -- demonstrate a pattern of deflecting substantive questions about the Program through representations of fact made on this Town Manager's personal authority which lose their luster under scrutiny. Now, I'm well aware that a majority of the Selectboard (and, perhaps, a majority of the town's voters) feel the end justifies the means in this instance. I don't and, for all the reasons I've laid out elsewhere, I find this manner of management -- of being managed -- a regrettable new phase in our small town democracy.
Nor is my purpose to tear down this individual Town Manager through personal attacks or otherwise. On the contrary, I insist on his accountability because I expect he will be our Town Manager for years to come. If we're going to make this Town Manager thing work in this town, with this individual, I believe we have to be more forthright in questioning his assumptions and exploring his view of the relevant facts. He's got the smarts and the industry to make good use of those questions and his work product will be the better for it. Given his management style, and his past history within town politics, I don't think this will be the last controversy of his tenure. Active Selectboard and committee oversight that pushes him to consult opposing viewpoints before drawing his lines in the sand are our best chance to make this Town Manager a success both personally and for the town he serves. I sincerely hope this unfortunate dispute will be a learning experience for town leadership, that they will more cautiously scrutinize each future "Program" up front so we don't again spend months learning the hard lesson the answer was settled in his mind well before the question was asked.
So is it fair to single out an individual town official by name under these circumstances?
I think so. Given the management style he's demonstrated in pursuit of this Program it should be clear by now this tower in concept, placement, and management, is thoroughly his handiwork, for both good and bad. In this respect, I feel, without vindictiveness or mockery, this tower is a fitting monument to, and necessary reminder of, the deeply alloyed positives and negatives of this Town Manager's way of doing business. For these reasons, I cannot imagine a more appropriate name for it.
