Inappropriate Actions (Norwich ListServ)

One raised eyebrow for Linda Cook for putting Chief Robinson in an unfair position by asking him whether he had been pressured by the Town Manager to sign the "Open Letter" advocating for the ABC Dairy site. 

She's effectively asking him to take sides between two bosses, the TM on the one hand and the SB majority who voted not to pursue the ABC Dairy site on the other.  If, in fact, the town department heads have felt pressured to toe the line, asking one of them point blank to acknowledge that in a private conversation effectively asks an employee you feel is being threatened with potential retaliation to do something that would trigger retaliation without any of the protections of a formal SB inquiry. 

There's no question the Selectboard, acting as a whole, has the authority to pursue questions such as were apparently raised by Linda Cook.  At 24 VSA Section 1237, Vermont law makes provision for the Selectboard to "cause the affairs of any town office or the conduct of any officer or employee thereof to be examined.  They may compel the attendance of witnesses, the production of books, papers, and other evidence."  But Linda should have taken up those questions in a Selectboard meeting and only pursued them in the context of a formal Selectboard decision to do so.


A corresponding eyebrow raised for our Town Manager who, after making the point that Cook's questions put a town employee in an unfair position, asserts a grasping view of his own position relative to the SB:  "It also undermines the authority and responsibilities of the Town Manager and clearly exceeds the authority of a member of the Selectboard.  The Town Manager works for the Selectboard; all other non-elected employees work for the Town Manager." 

By statute, "In all matters [a town manager] 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."  24 VSA Sec. 1233

The Town Manager works for the Selectboard to administrate the town's affairs.  Non-elected town employees work for the Town and the supervision and conditions of their work are administrated by the Town Manager.  It may see like a trivial distinction, but the Town Manager position exists solely to assist the legislative representatives of the town in administrating the town's affairs.  If the Selectboard is worried about intimidation of town employees by a town manager, Vermont law clearly gives the Selectboard, acting as a body, the authority to investigate and act upon their findings with or without the assistance of that town manager.  They are not the Town Manager's employees, they are the Town's employees and so is the Town Manager, all ultimately accountable to the Selectboard acting as a body.


Another raised eyebrow for our Town Manager in managing the entire woodlot question as he did. 

It would surprise me greatly if the TM didn't know of the established practice of distributing firewood to needy households by the Town Service Officer.  In fact, I would bet one reason the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program policy was drafted was to bring authority over firewood distribution under the Town Manager in an explicit break with tradition.  If so -- and knowing the wood was removed by someone with keys to the woodlot -- why on earth call the cops instead of just asking the folks who have distributed the wood in past years? Thoughtful adults without an axe to grind might simply call the Town Service Officer, confirm the facts, and remind her of the new policy.  If that didn't suffice, raising the issue in the next SB meeting as a matter of reminding everyone how the town's policy has changed should have done the trick. 

Instead, the entire matter was played to maximum effect. 

First a police investigation of a possible theft.  With the humble results of that investigation in hand -- and having stirred the pot by prompting public inquiries on the listserv -- the Town Manager nevertheless neglected to inform listserv readers that there had been no theft after all, despite at least two specific requests for more information posted by townspeople well after Chief Robinson's conclusions had been reported to the Town Manager. 

Why? 

Allowing the matter to fester publicly has likely discredited the firewood assistance program itself by creating an appearance that the wood collected was squandered.  Worse, in my mind, it put all this year's firewood recipients in an awful position, knowing they had received firewood assistance but having that distribution treated publicly like a theft. 

At best, this smacks of ham-handed bureaucratic insensitivity.  At worst, it suggests a deliberate effort by a town employee to publicly discredit an elected town official.


I think we're all sorry this can of worms ever opened. 

Woodlot In A Teapot (Norwich ListServ)

Here's a mouthful: 

"I note that there is an item on the agenda for the September 10, 2014 Selectboard meeting for an Executive Session related to the discipline or dismissal of the Town Manager. This item has been requested by a member of the Selectboard that told the Police Chief something to the effect that I (Neil) would be sorry I ever opened that can of worms, for sending a memorandum to her as Town Service Officer regarding the unauthorized removal of wood from a locked area, the Town's Woodlot."

For those who haven't read it, this is the first paragraph of the Town Manager's Selectboard Packet for this Wednesday's SB Meeting. 

Here are the facts as set out in various memos authored by the Town Manager in the past eight weeks:

In early July, several cords of firewood -- put up for the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program -- were removed and distributed to apparently qualified recipients at the direction of Town Service Officer (and Selectboard member) Linda Cook.  This practice is consistent with distributions made to qualified recipients each of the past 4 or 5 years.  Nevertheless, the Town Manager asked Chief Robinson "to investigate to determine if there had been a theft."  That investigation confirmed the facts stated above. 

On July 27th, the Town Manager sent "Linda Cook, Service Officer" a memorandum challenging her authority to distribute firewood in this manner "without the appropriate authorization as defined in the Norwich Wood Fuel Assistance Program procedures."   He concludes, "I recognize that the wood may have gone to individuals that need the wood, but request that you do not take any actions that involve the use of Town employees or resources, including wood from the woodlot, without specific written authorization from me."

Stirring stuff.

Here's where the facts get a little harder to follow. 

The TM says the Police Chief says he was asked by Linda Cook whether he had been pressured by the TM to sign on to the "Open Letter" the TM issued arguing for the ABC Dairy site back in late July after a majority of the SB had already voted against pursuing the ABC Dairy site as a new location for our fire and police stations.   The TM says the Police Chief was told by Linda Cook "that I (Neil) would be sorry I ever opened that can of worms," which the TM took to mean the woodlot matter. 

A flurry of TM memoranda have resulted expounding on many aspects of the statutory authority for Town Service Officers, Town Managers, and Fair Labor standards, the longest one entitled simply,  "Inappropriate Actions." 

In response, Linda Cook wrote an email to her fellow Selectboard members stating, in part, "I understand the Town Manager request that I notify one of the contacts identified in the Norwich wood fuel assistance program policy.  I will make sure I do so in the future."

So what does it all mean? 

Well, apparently the town wanted a better policy for managing the wood fuel assistance program.  Apparently, that policy altered recent wood distribution practice and the Town Service Officer needed reminding that the policy had been changed.  Apparently, that's settled. 

On a deeper level, of course, the administration of the woodlot and wood fuel assistance program is just a pretext for a simmering dispute between the TM and at least one member of the SB.  From where I sit, both deserve raised eyebrows for how they conducted themselves in this matter.   I'll take up that scolding in another post. 

Tempest in a Tracy Hall (Norwich ListServ)

As an only occasional listserv reader, I've been a little late to pick up on the various controversies animating this Wednesday's Selectboard Meeting.  After doing some homework, I will post on a few of the issues at play, but want to start here by stating my own position. 

Like Ed Childs, I also believe our current Town Manager is "the best Town Manager that Norwich has had."  As I've said before, I think he's demonstrated real bureaucratic genius and shown he's very adept at working with state and federal resources for the benefit of the town where he puts his mind to it.  There's no question the documentation and reporting coming from the various departments and his office are far superior to what we've had in the past.  As a tool and resource for better Selectboard decision-making, this town manager is really in a different class from what we've seen in this position in the past.  That's not to slag previous town managers, but this one really lives and breathes this stuff.

Unfortunately, events this summer raise real questions about whether our current TM has the political compass and sense of his role to survive in this post for long.  For all his administrative capabilities, we're seeing a worrying pattern of really questionable turf struggles with the Selectboard that will eventually make this TM's position untenable.  I'll briefly summarize a few of the most recent ones in separate posts, but want to express my own hope that our Selectboard members take more seriously the need to honestly and openly address the respective roles of TM and SB before misunderstandings and turf battles ruin the relationship.  (If you want the long version of this concern, written back in April 2012, go here.

Equally unfortunate, I'm afraid, is our human tendency to gloss over the failings of our allies and overstate those of our opponents.  It is not unreasonable for a TM and SB majority to disagree on all sorts of things.  The real feat is to balance the political and representational responsibilities of SB members with the administrative responsibilities of a TM and to restore that balance -- for the good of the Town -- when it slips. 

Here, I disagree with Ed Childs' view that a capable TM "deserves full support and respect from our elected representatives and the community."  Respect is a courtesy which runs both ways.  Abiding respect is earned.  If the dialogue between SB and TM is getting frayed once more, it's a mistake to imagine it's all one side's fault.       "Full support" is a fairy tale.  At worst, it's elected officials giving an appointed town employee carte blanche.  At best, it's willful denial this same appointed town employee won't do anything that riles up the electorate.

So, here's hoping our elected representatives on the Selectboard and their appointed administrative head can honestly and constructively work their way through these latest points of friction.  In that effort, I can agree, both parties deserve our full support.