The case for waiting

Monday night brought more appointments, reappointments, interviews and of course my usual requests for more public disclosure. Search for the word "interview" on this blog (at the upper left) and you will get several posts about my thoughts on this particular topic, so there's no need to cover that ground again.

That said; I received a phone call this afternoon from a constituent which proves my point.

The message was about Ms. Roberta Kety, who had interviewed for the Council on Aging and/or the Affirmative Action Committee. The caller personally knew of Ms. Kety and said, "She's one of the best catches any town could ever get...She's unbelievably tough, doesn't take any baloney, works very hard, puts the hours in...I just wanted to put a word in for her."

Now, we had already appointed Ms. Kety, so this feedback didn't make any difference. It does, however, prove my point about waiting a week between an interview and the vote to appoint. Sure, we can check references, but those are provided by the applicant. I feel much more comfortable about the people I vote to appoint when I can get this kind of unsolicited recommendation.

This can only happen if the public has time to share their thoughts, but by voting to appoint on the same night as the interview, we don't give the public that opportunity.

There is also the other side of the coin. What if the Board appointed someone before learning about the proverbial skeletons in their closet? It's happened before. We may be denying the public an opportunity to provide feedback, but we are also denying ourselves another way of checking an applicant's background.