Wereceived the following article from Sandra Coleman.
The Budget season is upon us.
As a member of the Budget Committee, we will be looking at all budgets in the next two (2) months, submitted to us by the Departments of the town. I will ask the Budget Committee members, and if they agree, to have all departments explain their revenues and expenditures in greater detail.
An example is the revenue collected from use of the Booster Club and its activities. It is imperative that a paper trail is kept by all Departments heads. A paper trail can be reviewed by tax payers at the Town Hall. It is The Right to Know Law.
The Coalition for Action is concerned about the Booster Club, its expenditures and its revenues. Equally important are the quality of the programs and, can they be improved? Would improvement make them financially viable? I believe it would.
As I sated earlier, the scenario presented, is only an example, but certainly can be applied to other departments in the Town.
Sandra Coleman
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Life Guards at the Ashland Town Beach
The Select Board has yet to reach a decision about whether to continue hiring life guards at the town beach. Over the past four years the town has lost approximately $28,000 at the beach. Glen Dion supports a swim-at-your-own-risk policy, while Jeanette Stewart and Dan Golden want to do more research on the issue before making a final decision. There is certainly plenty of time to make a decision, but that decision should be made within a larger context - a review of the operation of the Parks and Recreation Department as a whole.
Last year the Select Board decided to consider Parks and recreation a social cost rather than a profit center; however, they did not define what the limits of that social cost are. The camp ground makes money, but the beach does not. I have asked for figures on the summer program and the after school program but have not gotten them yet. However, the numbers in those programs has been declining.
The programs that Parks and Recreation provides are important to the town, but we need to look at the costs as well as the quality of the programs to determine whether the social cost is worth what we pay, and whether the programs could be improved to make them financially viable.
Last year the Select Board decided to consider Parks and recreation a social cost rather than a profit center; however, they did not define what the limits of that social cost are. The camp ground makes money, but the beach does not. I have asked for figures on the summer program and the after school program but have not gotten them yet. However, the numbers in those programs has been declining.
The programs that Parks and Recreation provides are important to the town, but we need to look at the costs as well as the quality of the programs to determine whether the social cost is worth what we pay, and whether the programs could be improved to make them financially viable.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Can the Board of Selectmen Do Away with a Statutory Position?
We received the following article from Sandra Coleman.
As a member of the of the Board of Selectmen,February,2011, I made a motion to change
the name of the Highway Department to Public Works Department. At this meeting, no
movement/motion was made to change the title of department head. This title remained
Road Agent, a statutory position.
At the Board of Selectmen meeting on October 17, 2011, the board voted in favor of
changing the title of Road Agent to Director of Publc Works Director. This week,
October 20, 2011, in the Town Bulletin, Paul Branscombe, Town Administrator of
Ashland, states: "during public comments at the Board of Selectmen meeting October
17, 2011, a member of the audience questioned whether in fact the BOS had the right
to change this from Road Agent". Paul Branscombe then states "the legal opinion is
that the Town of Ashland may have a Public Works Director with a broad range of
responsibilities including those of the statutory Road Agent position". Was a legal
opinion needed to have the department head of Public Work name changed to Public
Works Director? Again,waste of tax dollars. The question asked is: "can the Board of
Selectmen eliminate the position of Road Agent in the Town of Ashland, a statuary
position? Not receiving an answer, I asked "has the Road Agent position been
eliminated from the Town? Selectman Jeanette Stewart answered 'yes'. This is the
question needing a legal opinion. Glen Dion states "he will look into it".
Sandra Coleman
As a member of the of the Board of Selectmen,February,2011, I made a motion to change
the name of the Highway Department to Public Works Department. At this meeting, no
movement/motion was made to change the title of department head. This title remained
Road Agent, a statutory position.
At the Board of Selectmen meeting on October 17, 2011, the board voted in favor of
changing the title of Road Agent to Director of Publc Works Director. This week,
October 20, 2011, in the Town Bulletin, Paul Branscombe, Town Administrator of
Ashland, states: "during public comments at the Board of Selectmen meeting October
17, 2011, a member of the audience questioned whether in fact the BOS had the right
to change this from Road Agent". Paul Branscombe then states "the legal opinion is
that the Town of Ashland may have a Public Works Director with a broad range of
responsibilities including those of the statutory Road Agent position". Was a legal
opinion needed to have the department head of Public Work name changed to Public
Works Director? Again,waste of tax dollars. The question asked is: "can the Board of
Selectmen eliminate the position of Road Agent in the Town of Ashland, a statuary
position? Not receiving an answer, I asked "has the Road Agent position been
eliminated from the Town? Selectman Jeanette Stewart answered 'yes'. This is the
question needing a legal opinion. Glen Dion states "he will look into it".
Sandra Coleman
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Is There a Director of Public Works Position?
At the Select Board Meeting two weeks ago, there was a discussion about when the board created the position of Director of Public Works. The board agreed to check into it at that time. As far as I can determine, the topic did not come up at this week's BOS Work Session. The question remains: is there a position called Director of Public Works in the Town of Ashland? Research into this has yeilded the following:
The following discussion appears in the BOS Minutes from February 14, 2011, under New Business.
"Ashland Public Works Department – TA Branscombe and Mark Ober have discussed the renaming of the Highway Department and adding additional responsibilities to the department that would be a cost saving to other departments. This action would also come with the changing of the Road Agent title to Public Works Director. This proposal would need to see the employee that works at the transfer station as part of his full time job be relieved of his duties at the transfer station and be put into the “highway” section and the need to hire a part time employee for the transfer station would be needed. Action – this item will come before the Board again for vote."
The Select Board passed the following two motions on February 22, 2011 that changed the name of the department and added additional duties to those of the highway agent. (These minutes do not appear on the town's website for some reason.)
"Motion to change the name of the Highway Department to the Ashland Department of Public Works Department - Sandra Coleman; second - Leigh Sharps; discussion followed - vote 5-0 in favor.
"Motion to adopt provisions of RSA 231:63* - Additional Duties - Sandra Coleman; second Jeanette I. Stewart; vote 5-0." [* 231:63 Additional Duties. – Any town may vote to require a highway agent, in addition to his usual duties as highway agent, to have charge, under the direction of the selectmen, of the care and maintenance of any one or more of the following: collection of waste, refuse and garbage; care of public dumps; care of public parks and cemeteries; public beaches; public forests; public playgrounds; shade and ornamental trees.]
These minutes were approved on March 7, 2011 by a vote of 4-0. Neither of these motions changed the title of the highway agent to the Director of Public Works. In fact, by adopting the provisions of RSA 231:63, the board changed the duties the "highway agent" and not the Director of Public Works. As far as I can determine, there was no other discussion of creating a Director of Public Works position in the minutes this year. If this is true, the board will need to correct the problem.
I still have a question about whether the board can correct the problem by simply changing the title. Highway agent is a position established by law as an elected/appointed position. RSA 231:63 affirms this when it requires the town to vote to change to highway agent's duties. The Director of Public Works is not a position specified by law as an elected/appointed position and is, therefore, a hired position.
There are two other problems. One is that when the board voted to adopt the provisions of RSA 231.63, there was no town vote as required by the RSA to add the additional duties to the highway agent position. The second problem is that there is no line item in the budget for a Director of Public Works.
The following discussion appears in the BOS Minutes from February 14, 2011, under New Business.
"Ashland Public Works Department – TA Branscombe and Mark Ober have discussed the renaming of the Highway Department and adding additional responsibilities to the department that would be a cost saving to other departments. This action would also come with the changing of the Road Agent title to Public Works Director. This proposal would need to see the employee that works at the transfer station as part of his full time job be relieved of his duties at the transfer station and be put into the “highway” section and the need to hire a part time employee for the transfer station would be needed. Action – this item will come before the Board again for vote."
The Select Board passed the following two motions on February 22, 2011 that changed the name of the department and added additional duties to those of the highway agent. (These minutes do not appear on the town's website for some reason.)
"Motion to change the name of the Highway Department to the Ashland Department of Public Works Department - Sandra Coleman; second - Leigh Sharps; discussion followed - vote 5-0 in favor.
"Motion to adopt provisions of RSA 231:63* - Additional Duties - Sandra Coleman; second Jeanette I. Stewart; vote 5-0." [* 231:63 Additional Duties. – Any town may vote to require a highway agent, in addition to his usual duties as highway agent, to have charge, under the direction of the selectmen, of the care and maintenance of any one or more of the following: collection of waste, refuse and garbage; care of public dumps; care of public parks and cemeteries; public beaches; public forests; public playgrounds; shade and ornamental trees.]
These minutes were approved on March 7, 2011 by a vote of 4-0. Neither of these motions changed the title of the highway agent to the Director of Public Works. In fact, by adopting the provisions of RSA 231:63, the board changed the duties the "highway agent" and not the Director of Public Works. As far as I can determine, there was no other discussion of creating a Director of Public Works position in the minutes this year. If this is true, the board will need to correct the problem.
I still have a question about whether the board can correct the problem by simply changing the title. Highway agent is a position established by law as an elected/appointed position. RSA 231:63 affirms this when it requires the town to vote to change to highway agent's duties. The Director of Public Works is not a position specified by law as an elected/appointed position and is, therefore, a hired position.
There are two other problems. One is that when the board voted to adopt the provisions of RSA 231.63, there was no town vote as required by the RSA to add the additional duties to the highway agent position. The second problem is that there is no line item in the budget for a Director of Public Works.
Last Weeks Budget Committee Meeting
Jack Harding, the auditor for the electric Department, explained the department's accounting practices at last week's Budget Committee meeting. The budget committee had questions concerning the reporting of revenues and expenses, as well as questions about depreciation. Jack Harding explained that the Electric Department does not use the same type of accounting as the town because it operates like a business, a point that the Electric Department has made before. For this reason, the Electric Department uses Enterprise Fund accounting while the town uses Government Fund accounting. The differences between the two types of accounting help to explain some of the department's accounting practices.
Government fund accounting is used when revenues come from taxes (non-exchange funds), and Enterprise Fund accounting is used for business-type activities such as those conducted by a utility. The main differences between the the two funds has to do with (1) what the funds are designed to measure, and (2) when assets and liabilities are recognized and recorded on the financial reports. Government Fund Accounting measures current financial resources while Enterprise Fund Accounting measures both current and long-term assets and liabilities.
Governmental Funds use modified accrual accounting which recognizes revenues when they become available and measurable and recognizes expenditures when liabilities are incurred. Enterprise Funds use the accrual accounting which measures economic events regardless of when cash transactions occur. This method gives a better picture of the utility's current financial condition because it combines the current cash and future inflows and outflows. For example, the Electric Department bills its customers each month. Bills may be paid in cash or by credit card. In a cash system, revenues would only be recorded when the the cash and credit payments are received. In an accrual system, the entire amount billed would be considered revenue even though some bills are paid in cash and some by credit card. The amount of cash yet to be received would be reflected in Accounts Receivable.
The Budget Committee was also concerned about depreciation. Depreciation reflects the decline in value of assets over time. For example, a truck decreases in value over time. The amount depreciated reflects the cost of replacement. The committee is concerned that the Electric Department does not have enough capital in reserve. The committee asked Jack Harding whether it was good practice to put aside funds to cover the depreciation assets. Mr. Harding agreed that it is good practice.
Government fund accounting is used when revenues come from taxes (non-exchange funds), and Enterprise Fund accounting is used for business-type activities such as those conducted by a utility. The main differences between the the two funds has to do with (1) what the funds are designed to measure, and (2) when assets and liabilities are recognized and recorded on the financial reports. Government Fund Accounting measures current financial resources while Enterprise Fund Accounting measures both current and long-term assets and liabilities.
Governmental Funds use modified accrual accounting which recognizes revenues when they become available and measurable and recognizes expenditures when liabilities are incurred. Enterprise Funds use the accrual accounting which measures economic events regardless of when cash transactions occur. This method gives a better picture of the utility's current financial condition because it combines the current cash and future inflows and outflows. For example, the Electric Department bills its customers each month. Bills may be paid in cash or by credit card. In a cash system, revenues would only be recorded when the the cash and credit payments are received. In an accrual system, the entire amount billed would be considered revenue even though some bills are paid in cash and some by credit card. The amount of cash yet to be received would be reflected in Accounts Receivable.
The Budget Committee was also concerned about depreciation. Depreciation reflects the decline in value of assets over time. For example, a truck decreases in value over time. The amount depreciated reflects the cost of replacement. The committee is concerned that the Electric Department does not have enough capital in reserve. The committee asked Jack Harding whether it was good practice to put aside funds to cover the depreciation assets. Mr. Harding agreed that it is good practice.
Friday, October 7, 2011
An Anonymous Comment on My Last Article
I received the following anonymous comment and am printing it in its entirety. Although it supports my position, I am printing it because it raises a number of issues concerning the performance of the Select Board.
Thanks for your article. Overall, the Board of Selectmen needs an attitude adjustment. I’ve been observing these meetings for some time and I’m increasingly dismayed at the negative “can’t do” attitude, the lack of respect for the citizens of Ashland and the lack of professionalism. If that seems harsh, let me cite a few examples.
1. Can’t do Attitude (and negativity).
a. A group of concerned citizens presented their research on the benefits of moving the bandstand to a location where it might be used and appreciated, rather than sitting unused and unloved in a gravel section of the ball field next to a porta-potty. The immediate reaction was “can’t do” - might cost too much, liability issues, parking problems, police patrolling problems and of course, what if……? One citizen suggested that before they reject the notion altogether (since many expressed support for the idea), perhaps they should investigate the issues before saying no. That was greeted with silence.
b. A citizen raised a concern that the newly reinstalled ramp at the beach had some potential safety issues regarding a gap through which small children might fall. Again, negative reaction. The simple response should have been to request Mark Ober to check it out. (More about this below.)
c. An individual from the Ashland Area Recreation Association (AARA) presented their ideas on building a concession stand/public restroom facility in the ball field. She began her presentation with the statement that this would be of no cost to the town, had the potential to generate income, were looking into applying for grants and only wanted the Board’s approval to continue their efforts. Again, the immediate reaction was NO – what if the roof needs replacing in 8 years, what if it needs repairs, who will monitor use, three bathrooms are too much, it sits on a right-of-way location and what if the property is sold in 10 years and the new owners…… While some concerns/questions are valid and should be answered, who would want to pursue the ideas when the board already shot it down? It took a simple suggestion from our newly appointed Director of Pubic Works to move the backstop and thus create a new possibility for location to move beyond the negativity.
d. They can’t even figure out how to install an historic bell in a location for all to enjoy.
2. Lack of respect for the Citizens of Ashland.
a. At this week’s meeting, Mr. Toth asked a question about the process for appointing the new “Director of Public Works.” He was treated with contempt and accused of “wasting” town money (as discussed in this blog article) since they felt the need to consult an attorney based on an earlier blog article. How about “Thanks for your question Mr. Toth. We have looked into it and based on our research, we believe… Did that address your issue?”
b. Sandra Coleman raised a question about the process for selecting Glenn Dion to fill the vacancy. The response to her question was, in my opinion, hostile and defensive. She had been treated worse in an earlier meeting when Janette Stewart cut off discussion about issues raised by Sandra, citing her authority to do so as Chair.
c. Item b above – the woman who raised the issue of the ramp - was first questioned as to her residency. Then was told that parents are responsible for watching their kids and it’s not the town’s problem. How about “Thanks for raising this concern. We will certainly look into it. The safety of our residents is of utmost concern.”
d. Meetings are now being held in the school library. While this is better for acoustics (no need for microphones), it is standing room only, which discourages attendance (I can only assume this is the plan).
e. Work sessions are now being held at 9 in the morning in the town hall conference room, with little or no room for observers (the meeting is open to the public). The time and location make it difficult or impossible for public attendance. Sends a loud and clear message that we are not welcome.
3. Lack of professionalism: The issues cited in the above examples speak clearly to this. In addition,
a. When questioned, they frequently defer to Paul Branscombe, saying, for example, “it was Paul’s suggestion.” I would like to remind the Board that Paul Branscombe is the Town Administrator and answers to them, not the reverse. Following his suggestions does not absolve them of responsibility.
b. I was also disappointed that the Selectmen could not find time to attend the Charette (only Dan Golden sent his apologies in advance). This event brought a little energy in the town and was well attended. It’s too bad they could not hear concerns and creative ideas and from the citizens they supposedly represent.
c. They also did not participate in the July 4th parade or the Table Top exercise. What does this say about their interest in the town?
The Board of Selectmen was elected by the citizens of the town to represent our best interests. They are answerable to the town in everything they do. I do not expect to agree with everything they do. However, I do expect that I, all of us, will be listened to with courtesy, respect and an open mind. I also expect – demand – transparency in our town government. If the present behavior and attitudes do not change, I for one, will be not only be casting my vote for someone else, I will be actively campaigning for better-qualified candidates.
Thanks for your article. Overall, the Board of Selectmen needs an attitude adjustment. I’ve been observing these meetings for some time and I’m increasingly dismayed at the negative “can’t do” attitude, the lack of respect for the citizens of Ashland and the lack of professionalism. If that seems harsh, let me cite a few examples.
1. Can’t do Attitude (and negativity).
a. A group of concerned citizens presented their research on the benefits of moving the bandstand to a location where it might be used and appreciated, rather than sitting unused and unloved in a gravel section of the ball field next to a porta-potty. The immediate reaction was “can’t do” - might cost too much, liability issues, parking problems, police patrolling problems and of course, what if……? One citizen suggested that before they reject the notion altogether (since many expressed support for the idea), perhaps they should investigate the issues before saying no. That was greeted with silence.
b. A citizen raised a concern that the newly reinstalled ramp at the beach had some potential safety issues regarding a gap through which small children might fall. Again, negative reaction. The simple response should have been to request Mark Ober to check it out. (More about this below.)
c. An individual from the Ashland Area Recreation Association (AARA) presented their ideas on building a concession stand/public restroom facility in the ball field. She began her presentation with the statement that this would be of no cost to the town, had the potential to generate income, were looking into applying for grants and only wanted the Board’s approval to continue their efforts. Again, the immediate reaction was NO – what if the roof needs replacing in 8 years, what if it needs repairs, who will monitor use, three bathrooms are too much, it sits on a right-of-way location and what if the property is sold in 10 years and the new owners…… While some concerns/questions are valid and should be answered, who would want to pursue the ideas when the board already shot it down? It took a simple suggestion from our newly appointed Director of Pubic Works to move the backstop and thus create a new possibility for location to move beyond the negativity.
d. They can’t even figure out how to install an historic bell in a location for all to enjoy.
2. Lack of respect for the Citizens of Ashland.
a. At this week’s meeting, Mr. Toth asked a question about the process for appointing the new “Director of Public Works.” He was treated with contempt and accused of “wasting” town money (as discussed in this blog article) since they felt the need to consult an attorney based on an earlier blog article. How about “Thanks for your question Mr. Toth. We have looked into it and based on our research, we believe… Did that address your issue?”
b. Sandra Coleman raised a question about the process for selecting Glenn Dion to fill the vacancy. The response to her question was, in my opinion, hostile and defensive. She had been treated worse in an earlier meeting when Janette Stewart cut off discussion about issues raised by Sandra, citing her authority to do so as Chair.
c. Item b above – the woman who raised the issue of the ramp - was first questioned as to her residency. Then was told that parents are responsible for watching their kids and it’s not the town’s problem. How about “Thanks for raising this concern. We will certainly look into it. The safety of our residents is of utmost concern.”
d. Meetings are now being held in the school library. While this is better for acoustics (no need for microphones), it is standing room only, which discourages attendance (I can only assume this is the plan).
e. Work sessions are now being held at 9 in the morning in the town hall conference room, with little or no room for observers (the meeting is open to the public). The time and location make it difficult or impossible for public attendance. Sends a loud and clear message that we are not welcome.
3. Lack of professionalism: The issues cited in the above examples speak clearly to this. In addition,
a. When questioned, they frequently defer to Paul Branscombe, saying, for example, “it was Paul’s suggestion.” I would like to remind the Board that Paul Branscombe is the Town Administrator and answers to them, not the reverse. Following his suggestions does not absolve them of responsibility.
b. I was also disappointed that the Selectmen could not find time to attend the Charette (only Dan Golden sent his apologies in advance). This event brought a little energy in the town and was well attended. It’s too bad they could not hear concerns and creative ideas and from the citizens they supposedly represent.
c. They also did not participate in the July 4th parade or the Table Top exercise. What does this say about their interest in the town?
The Board of Selectmen was elected by the citizens of the town to represent our best interests. They are answerable to the town in everything they do. I do not expect to agree with everything they do. However, I do expect that I, all of us, will be listened to with courtesy, respect and an open mind. I also expect – demand – transparency in our town government. If the present behavior and attitudes do not change, I for one, will be not only be casting my vote for someone else, I will be actively campaigning for better-qualified candidates.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
More on Being Accused of Wasting the Town's Money
I have already explained why I think I was wrongly accused of wasting the town's money. I had raised a point about the public's right to know concerning the appointment of a highway agent on the blog. I made no formal complaint. The board, however, did not appoint a highway agent; they promoted Tim Paquette to the position of Director of Public Works. I had no issue with that appointment.
Furthermore, I believe that Glenn Dion's accusation was unprofessional and highly inappropriate. Voters should never be treated in this manner for raising an issue they feel is important. A simple explanation of the board's position would have sufficed. I raised the issue in a respectful manner, but I did not receive a respectful answer. Unlike the board and the town attorney, I did not interpret the law to mean that just because the town voted to give the selectmen the authority to appoint the highway agent that also meant that we gave up our right to know how the agent was appointed. I will explain why I think the RSA is ambiguous, but for now I think that when conducting town business, we must agree to disagree, and we must agree to treat each other with respect.
I want readers to know something about my political position. I do not belong to a political party because I believe that the ideologies of the parties are limited and contradictory. I have no desire to run for political office. I don't really care who is in office as long as they do their job according to existing laws, they base their decisions on sound judgment, they represent the will of the people, and they act professionally. We can see how the board conducts it business, and how they have treated the townspeople at meetings, but we also have a right to know how and why they make decisions.
I believe that transparency in government and business is fundamental to living in a free society. If voters know how and why officials make decisions, they can make more informed decisions in the voting booth. We don't have real freedom of choice when we do not know what the actual choices are. We have our best opportunity for transparent government at the local level where decisions affect our lives more directly than those made at higher levels. The Select Board should carry out the will of the voters, and in doing so, they should listen and carefully evaluate what voters have to say. This, however, is not always of true of the current board.
Citizens have a responsibility to express their views on public issues. I have tried to be thoughtful and respectful in expressing my opinions. When I have been wrong, I have corrected my errors and apologized as readers of the blog and members of the Select Board know. I also publish the opinions of others on the blog so that we can have an honest and open discussion of the issues, something that is vital to the functioning of our government.
That said, it may be more clear why I believed the appointment of the highway agent should be done in a public session. This issue may come up again if it is determined that the town never established the position of Director of Public Works and has to reappoint Tim Paquette. RSA 231:62 says that voters may authorize the board to appoint an agent, but it does not specifically say that this means that the voters relinquish their right to know how and why the decision was made. The board and town attorney disagreed, which is fine. But, I believe I raised a valid point. Here's why.
The board's argument hinges on whether the road agent in our town is a hired or an elected position. A hired position is not subject to the right to know laws, an elected position is. I believe the highway agent still must be considered an elected position, and I base this on the discussion of the position of Road Agent in "Knowing the Territory" by the New Hampshire Local Government Center (LGC). The board said that the town voted to authorize the board to appoint a road agent in 1976. They also said that they appointed Mark Ober Road Agent and did not need to renew his appointment. However, the LGC says,"The position can be appointed by the selectmen, if this is authorized by a town meeting vote, also subject to expansion to a two- or three-year term." If what the board said about Mark Ober's appointment is true, the town would have had to reappoint Mark Ober on a yearly basis unless the town voted to expand the appointment to two or three years.
The LGC goes on to say, "In addition, the town meeting can authorize the selectmen to appoint an 'expert highway agent" under RSA 231:64. Although the definition of 'expert' has never been clarified, the difference between an appointed agent and and expert agent is, most likely, that an expert agent has no fixed term of office, making the expert agent an employee or contractor hired by the selectmen." Mark Ober certainly fits the description of "expert highway agent." But, according to the LGC, the town would have had to have voted to authorize the selectmen to appoint an "expert highway agent." According to what the selectmen said at the meeting, the town authorized the board to appoint a "road agent." It may be better to leave this issue alone. What is important to my argument is the distinction made between an appointed highway agent and a hired expert highway agent. The first is an elected position that voters may authorize the select board to fill, and the second is a hired position. I believe that according to the right to know laws, the appointment should be done in a public session, but hiring can be done in a non-public session.
I gave my opinion a great deal of research and thought, and I believe I stated it in a responsible manner. I also believe the case is debatable given that the LGC says that the term "expert highway has never really been defined." I also recognize that the LGC is not the final authority. Given my political position on transparency, I came down on the side of the public's right know. The board and the town attorney did not. Despite this disagreement, I believe I should have been treated with respect and my position given a fair hearing by the board rather than being falsely accused of wasting the town's money in a public meeting.
The town is facing serious financial problems and the budget is likely to be very contentious given the state of the economy. We need a board that can deal with difficult issues in a calm and respectful manner. They need to be able to listen to public concerns and consider opposing points of view respectfully and thoughtfully. We need to insist that they act professionally.
Furthermore, I believe that Glenn Dion's accusation was unprofessional and highly inappropriate. Voters should never be treated in this manner for raising an issue they feel is important. A simple explanation of the board's position would have sufficed. I raised the issue in a respectful manner, but I did not receive a respectful answer. Unlike the board and the town attorney, I did not interpret the law to mean that just because the town voted to give the selectmen the authority to appoint the highway agent that also meant that we gave up our right to know how the agent was appointed. I will explain why I think the RSA is ambiguous, but for now I think that when conducting town business, we must agree to disagree, and we must agree to treat each other with respect.
I want readers to know something about my political position. I do not belong to a political party because I believe that the ideologies of the parties are limited and contradictory. I have no desire to run for political office. I don't really care who is in office as long as they do their job according to existing laws, they base their decisions on sound judgment, they represent the will of the people, and they act professionally. We can see how the board conducts it business, and how they have treated the townspeople at meetings, but we also have a right to know how and why they make decisions.
I believe that transparency in government and business is fundamental to living in a free society. If voters know how and why officials make decisions, they can make more informed decisions in the voting booth. We don't have real freedom of choice when we do not know what the actual choices are. We have our best opportunity for transparent government at the local level where decisions affect our lives more directly than those made at higher levels. The Select Board should carry out the will of the voters, and in doing so, they should listen and carefully evaluate what voters have to say. This, however, is not always of true of the current board.
Citizens have a responsibility to express their views on public issues. I have tried to be thoughtful and respectful in expressing my opinions. When I have been wrong, I have corrected my errors and apologized as readers of the blog and members of the Select Board know. I also publish the opinions of others on the blog so that we can have an honest and open discussion of the issues, something that is vital to the functioning of our government.
That said, it may be more clear why I believed the appointment of the highway agent should be done in a public session. This issue may come up again if it is determined that the town never established the position of Director of Public Works and has to reappoint Tim Paquette. RSA 231:62 says that voters may authorize the board to appoint an agent, but it does not specifically say that this means that the voters relinquish their right to know how and why the decision was made. The board and town attorney disagreed, which is fine. But, I believe I raised a valid point. Here's why.
The board's argument hinges on whether the road agent in our town is a hired or an elected position. A hired position is not subject to the right to know laws, an elected position is. I believe the highway agent still must be considered an elected position, and I base this on the discussion of the position of Road Agent in "Knowing the Territory" by the New Hampshire Local Government Center (LGC). The board said that the town voted to authorize the board to appoint a road agent in 1976. They also said that they appointed Mark Ober Road Agent and did not need to renew his appointment. However, the LGC says,"The position can be appointed by the selectmen, if this is authorized by a town meeting vote, also subject to expansion to a two- or three-year term." If what the board said about Mark Ober's appointment is true, the town would have had to reappoint Mark Ober on a yearly basis unless the town voted to expand the appointment to two or three years.
The LGC goes on to say, "In addition, the town meeting can authorize the selectmen to appoint an 'expert highway agent" under RSA 231:64. Although the definition of 'expert' has never been clarified, the difference between an appointed agent and and expert agent is, most likely, that an expert agent has no fixed term of office, making the expert agent an employee or contractor hired by the selectmen." Mark Ober certainly fits the description of "expert highway agent." But, according to the LGC, the town would have had to have voted to authorize the selectmen to appoint an "expert highway agent." According to what the selectmen said at the meeting, the town authorized the board to appoint a "road agent." It may be better to leave this issue alone. What is important to my argument is the distinction made between an appointed highway agent and a hired expert highway agent. The first is an elected position that voters may authorize the select board to fill, and the second is a hired position. I believe that according to the right to know laws, the appointment should be done in a public session, but hiring can be done in a non-public session.
I gave my opinion a great deal of research and thought, and I believe I stated it in a responsible manner. I also believe the case is debatable given that the LGC says that the term "expert highway has never really been defined." I also recognize that the LGC is not the final authority. Given my political position on transparency, I came down on the side of the public's right know. The board and the town attorney did not. Despite this disagreement, I believe I should have been treated with respect and my position given a fair hearing by the board rather than being falsely accused of wasting the town's money in a public meeting.
The town is facing serious financial problems and the budget is likely to be very contentious given the state of the economy. We need a board that can deal with difficult issues in a calm and respectful manner. They need to be able to listen to public concerns and consider opposing points of view respectfully and thoughtfully. We need to insist that they act professionally.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Still More on the Highway Agent/Director of Public Works Issue
At last night's Select Board Meeting Glenn Dion accused me of wasting the town's money because the board consulted the town's attorney in response to the blog articles I have written on the process of selecting the highway agent. I made no formal complaint or formal charges. I stated my opinion in a blog article as I have a right to do. I questioned the process. The board made the decision to spend the money for reasons they did not explain. As far as I am concerned, there was no need for them to do so unless the they unsure of the proper procedure themselves.
My issue was that the position of highway agent is an elected position. The town voted to give the board authority to appoint a highway agent in 1976. My contention is that the position is a political appointment made directly or by the authority of the voters; therefore, deliberations concerning the position should be done in a public session. The board went into a non-public session to discuss "personnel issues" and then went back into a public session where they held a vote. Had they been more specific about the purpose of the non-public session, many of us would have stayed to hear the results and ask questions about the process.
The town attorney disagreed with me saying that the position of highway agent is not an elected position because of the 1976 vote, which is true. Apparently, this also means we don't have a right to know how the board made their decision. However, this should make us wary in the future about giving up our voting rights along with our right to know. We might want to take those rights back at some time in the future.
The whole point is moot, however, because the board did not appoint a highway agent; they hired a Director of Public Works. This raises questions about why the board thought they needed to consult their attorney since my main concern had to do with the appointment of a highway agent. In my mind, "appointing" a Highway Agent is not the same as "hiring" a Director of Public Works or "promoting someone to that position. RSA 231:62 says that "each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents." The RSA also describes the agent's duties and responsibilities. There is no RSA that I am aware of of deals with a position called Director of Public Works or says how that position shall be filled. In the first case, the board is acting with the authorization of the voters, which to me means that voters have a right to know how the selection is made. The entire process should be done in a public session. The only reason for holding a non-public session would be if the board felt they had to discuss information that would be damaging to one of the candidates. In the second case, the board is simply hiring a person for a job that is not defined by RSA. I would agree that the process they followed for hiring a Director of Public Works was appropriate.
Also at the meeting, Sandra Coleman brought up the subject of whether Mark Ober's title had ever been changed from Highway Agent to Director of Public Works. She said that she went through the Select Board minutes and could only find where the board changed the title of the department from the Highway Department to the Public Works Department. No one on the board or at the meeting knew the answer to the question. Is there an official Director of Public Works position? If so, when was it created, and what is the job description? We also might ask, can the board do away with the position of Highway Agent since that position is provided for by RSA?
I would like to remind the members of the board that this is a blog article not a formal complaint. I am stating my opinion about the process, not questioning their judgment about the selection. My concern is with the rights of voters and the voter's right to know.
My issue was that the position of highway agent is an elected position. The town voted to give the board authority to appoint a highway agent in 1976. My contention is that the position is a political appointment made directly or by the authority of the voters; therefore, deliberations concerning the position should be done in a public session. The board went into a non-public session to discuss "personnel issues" and then went back into a public session where they held a vote. Had they been more specific about the purpose of the non-public session, many of us would have stayed to hear the results and ask questions about the process.
The town attorney disagreed with me saying that the position of highway agent is not an elected position because of the 1976 vote, which is true. Apparently, this also means we don't have a right to know how the board made their decision. However, this should make us wary in the future about giving up our voting rights along with our right to know. We might want to take those rights back at some time in the future.
The whole point is moot, however, because the board did not appoint a highway agent; they hired a Director of Public Works. This raises questions about why the board thought they needed to consult their attorney since my main concern had to do with the appointment of a highway agent. In my mind, "appointing" a Highway Agent is not the same as "hiring" a Director of Public Works or "promoting someone to that position. RSA 231:62 says that "each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents." The RSA also describes the agent's duties and responsibilities. There is no RSA that I am aware of of deals with a position called Director of Public Works or says how that position shall be filled. In the first case, the board is acting with the authorization of the voters, which to me means that voters have a right to know how the selection is made. The entire process should be done in a public session. The only reason for holding a non-public session would be if the board felt they had to discuss information that would be damaging to one of the candidates. In the second case, the board is simply hiring a person for a job that is not defined by RSA. I would agree that the process they followed for hiring a Director of Public Works was appropriate.
Also at the meeting, Sandra Coleman brought up the subject of whether Mark Ober's title had ever been changed from Highway Agent to Director of Public Works. She said that she went through the Select Board minutes and could only find where the board changed the title of the department from the Highway Department to the Public Works Department. No one on the board or at the meeting knew the answer to the question. Is there an official Director of Public Works position? If so, when was it created, and what is the job description? We also might ask, can the board do away with the position of Highway Agent since that position is provided for by RSA?
I would like to remind the members of the board that this is a blog article not a formal complaint. I am stating my opinion about the process, not questioning their judgment about the selection. My concern is with the rights of voters and the voter's right to know.
Monday, October 3, 2011
More on The Issue of the Highway Agent
We have been having some problems with getting comments from people. Paul Branscombe called and said he sent a response to the article on the promotion of the Highway Agent, but we have not received it yet. I wanted to post the basic response prior to the Select Board Meeting.
Paul said that at a Town Meeting in 1976, the town voted to authorize the Select Board to appoint the Highway Agent. He said that the use of the word "promote" in the Town Bulletin was incorrect. The Board appointed Tim Paquette as Public Works Director. (We need to see the minutes of the meeting to get the exact wording.)
My understanding is that the Director of Public Works is a hired position, and Highway Agent is an elected position. This should mean that the Select Board cannot combine the two positions if in doing so it does away with an elected position. According to RSA 321:62
"Unless the town votes to establish a board of public works commissioners under RSA 38-C to perform the duties of highway agents, at the annual meeting, or less often if a town has so provided pursuant to RSA 231:62-a or 231:62-b, each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents."
Since Highway Agent is an elected position, the appointment must take place in a public session according to General Kelly Ayotte's Memorandum, July 15, 2009, interviews and deliberations on filling a vacancy in an elected office must occur in public session.
Why is this important? The Select Board takes the place of voters when making appointments to elected position. It is a public trust. The Board must interview and deliberate in a pubic session so that the public is aware of the appointee's background and qualifications, and the public is aware of how the board came to its decision.
Paul said that at a Town Meeting in 1976, the town voted to authorize the Select Board to appoint the Highway Agent. He said that the use of the word "promote" in the Town Bulletin was incorrect. The Board appointed Tim Paquette as Public Works Director. (We need to see the minutes of the meeting to get the exact wording.)
My understanding is that the Director of Public Works is a hired position, and Highway Agent is an elected position. This should mean that the Select Board cannot combine the two positions if in doing so it does away with an elected position. According to RSA 321:62
"Unless the town votes to establish a board of public works commissioners under RSA 38-C to perform the duties of highway agents, at the annual meeting, or less often if a town has so provided pursuant to RSA 231:62-a or 231:62-b, each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents."
Since Highway Agent is an elected position, the appointment must take place in a public session according to General Kelly Ayotte's Memorandum, July 15, 2009, interviews and deliberations on filling a vacancy in an elected office must occur in public session.
Why is this important? The Select Board takes the place of voters when making appointments to elected position. It is a public trust. The Board must interview and deliberate in a pubic session so that the public is aware of the appointee's background and qualifications, and the public is aware of how the board came to its decision.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Lambert vs. Belknap County
Here is the link to Lambert vs. Belknap County for those who are interested.
An Important Budget Committee Meeting On October 6
The Budget Committee will be meeting on Thursday, October 6 in the Elementary School Library at 7:00 to discuss the Utility budgets. At this meeting the committee will meet with the Electric Department's auditor, Jack Harding. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Electric Department's financial reporting and accounting practices. At their last meeting, the Budget Committee questioned the way in which the department accounts for its revenues and expenses, and the Electric Department responded that they follow the recommendations of their auditor. Ultimately, what is important to the townspeople is that we all have a clear understanding of Electric Department's finances. The same holds true of the other departments in town as well. While the utilities have a different financial situation than other town departments, all departments should be following the same accounting practices.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Can the Select Promote Someone to the Position of Highway Agent?
We believe the answer to that question is, no. According to the Town Bulletin at the last Select Board Meeting, "It was announced that Tim Paquette has been promoted to the position of Public Works Director effective November 1, 2011." Earlier this year, the board combined the position of Highway agent and Public Works Director. The problem with this action, at least according to RSA 231:62 (See RSA 231:61 below) is that the Highway Agent is an elected position, and the Public Works Director position is not. This would indicate that the board acted correctly in promoting Tim Paquette to the position of director, but Tim cannot be the Highway Agent unless he is elected or appointed to fill the vacancy. Since Highway Agent is an elected position, the appointment must be done in a public session.
Section 231:62
231:62 Highway Agents. – Unless the town votes to establish a board of public works commissioners under RSA 38-C to perform the duties of highway agents, at the annual meeting, or less often if a town has so provided pursuant to RSA 231:62-a or 231:62-b, each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents, who, under the direction of the selectmen, shall have charge of the construction, maintenance, and repair of all town highways and bridges and the maintenance and repair of all sidewalks within the town..."
231:62 Highway Agents. – Unless the town votes to establish a board of public works commissioners under RSA 38-C to perform the duties of highway agents, at the annual meeting, or less often if a town has so provided pursuant to RSA 231:62-a or 231:62-b, each town shall elect by ballot, or by major vote authorize the selectmen to appoint, one or more highway agents, who, under the direction of the selectmen, shall have charge of the construction, maintenance, and repair of all town highways and bridges and the maintenance and repair of all sidewalks within the town..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)