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.
No comments:
Post a Comment