Civic Virtue (Norwich ListServ)

I'm baffled. 

On paper, we probably have the most talented and even-tempered group of Selectboard members I've seen since the early 1990's. 

On paper, at least, this is the most qualified Town Manager we've ever hired. 

The rancor and ill will of the last decade finally seemed to have subsided and yet, in practice, this group has got themselves in a tangle over this tower that is only just beginning. 

Back last December 9th, I posted a lengthy critique of the proposal to site a 198' tower in a valley along the drainage that borders New Boston Road.  In the past nine months, I've spent dozens and dozens of hours writing to the listserv and selectboard, appearing at capital facilities committee and selectboard meetings, and pursuing extended conversations with individual selectboard members and our town manager pleading with them to slow down and revisit the basic premises of a misconceived tower project that is now, perhaps, unraveling before our eyes. 

Over the next ten days, I'm going to post a steady stream of sometimes pointed critiques of how we got into this mess.  I hope to persuade those town officials, townspeople, and taxpayers who still need persuading that we need to reject the VTel contract and get on with building a tower that actually is designed to serve the community for the long-term. The VTel tower proposal was designed and managed in a manner that has, I feel, diminished town institutions and now threatens to discredit the selectboard members and town manager who have -- in the earnest belief they are doing the right thing -- championed it.

For now, I just want to relate one important lesson -- the essential civic virtue -- I've learned these past nine months: 
Embrace the opposition. 
Try, in good faith, to understand what they are saying, however shrill or close-minded they may seem, simply on the off chance they may see something you do not. 
Give them a listen because we don't know what we don't know and it's often the least pleasant experiences that teach us the most. 
And in a democracy, trust in compromise with those who oppose you because, over time, unilateral decisions simply don't survive.

One of the best examples of this civic virtue in action can be found in our chief of police, Doug Robinson. 
For those who recall a few years back, Chief Robinson, fairly new to the job and working under an earlier town manager, found himself and his department raked across the coals for being out of touch with the community he was meant to serve.  The difference in his response and that of his boss was marked.  Doug went out of his way to meet with concerned citizens wherever they wanted to talk; patiently explained his views on difficult topics and showed flexibility as he came to understand opposing viewpoints.  He listened then and has since exhibited that same wisdom and good judgment in some very difficult settings, in the effort becoming a chief of police who completely nullified the concerns many townspeople had expressed about the size and mentality of our police force, becoming an exemplary public servant and a true asset to the town. 
His boss, less flexible and more confident in his own road, has since moved on.

Most of the mistakes made in this tower misadventure, I believe, are the result of haste and a fundamental misjudgment -- made nine months ago -- that the looming FCC deadline justified trying to bull through the opposition.  Our current town manager is an individual of exceptional talents and, with due respect to his predecessors, his capabilities far exceed even what we thought we might find when we first recommended creating a town manager position a decade ago. I strongly believe this town manager can also become an exemplary public servant and long-term asset to the town if he can learn to trust this same civic virtue. 

Our efforts to present a practical alternative to the current proposal -- based on demonstrated community standards and designed to serve both public safety and broadband telecommunications goals that may well be more cost effective and more functional -- has fallen on deaf ears these past months.  It's time to stop dismissing those of us who live near New Boston Road as NIMBYites and those who live further off as vocal cranks.  Time is running out, there's important work to do and the mistakes made today in the name of expediency will, in retrospect, seem incomprehensible errors this town will have to live with for decades. 

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. 

Seniority Preamble (Cross-Post)

(A comment to this blog post: http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-am-anemic-volunteer-part-1.html)

There is one important function to this seniority preamble in my opinion. It reveals whether an individual has lived in town long enough to have a reasonable chance of gathering why certain walls were built before advocating to tear them down.

The social necessity of testifying to one's term of residency is a nod to the cultural struggle occuring here in Norwich and throughout rural America to some degree. At its worst, that struggle flares up in the form of a Ruth Dwyer and the "Take Back Vermont" sloganeering of a few years back. At its core, the struggle is far less invidious, but probably much more important.

The rural agricultural traditions of this town and region are giving way to an urban/suburban ethos which values the physical rural character of the place, but runs roughshod over the rural character of the community and its institutions. In the past two decades this town has abandoned traditional town meeting, instituted a town manager form of government, and professionalized its police force and fire department. These changes aren't necessarily bad, but they signify a departure from the libertarian self-reliance and consensual interdependence of the community and institution which they replace.

I'm as guilty as anyone in town, spending some time on the town manager review committee and toiling for some years in an effort to bureaucratize land use regulation in town.

I don't think having spent my entire life in Norwich would have changed my views -- there have been plenty of life long residents behind these efforts as well.

I do think I've been around long enough to recognize some of the costs to these changes, enough to question those costs at least. And they aren't insignificant, but that's another topic.

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.