Appointments and public testimony

I've received a lot of feedback about appointments. While most of it is focused on a particular candidate, one email took issue with my reluctance to hear Mr. Ament's testimony this past Monday evening. This is the explanation I provided...


I have consistently argued for interviews for all potential appointees (or reappointees, as the case may be), as well as a one week interval between the interview and the vote so that the public has time to provide feedback. Unfortunately, not all of the selectmen have agreed, and so some individuals have been reappointed without an interview, or have been appointed or reappointed the night of their interview, before the public was able to offer feedback.

While I strongly believe that there must be public interviews of every applicant, I do not believe the public should be allowed to participate in these interviews as they happen. It is impossible to retract something said in public, and someone may - intentionally or accidentally - say something insulting, personal, etc., that shouldn't be said. Moreover, when appointed, these volunteers are "special" town employees with many of the same rights and responsibilities of paid town employees. This means that any personnel issues must be handled in executive session, unless the appointee requests otherwise. I also fear that potential volunteers may feel intimidated if they know that the public will be allowed to speak during their interview.

However, public interviews are an opportunity for the general public to meet an applicant and learn more about the person. Even if the public is not allowed to speak during an interview, they MUST be given an opportunity to provide feedback. Allowing for a week gives the public time to comment so that the selectmen can make good, informed decisions.