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.
No comments:
Post a Comment