If you watched the interviews for the town manager candidates (note that they are being replayed by FCTV-13...next show at 3am tonight - Monday morning - for the late crowd or those with VCRs), you probably noticed that each of the selectmen had their preferred questions. Some had very specific questions, but the problem with specific questions is that you get specific answers.
For my part, I had about half-a-dozen specific questions, from which I asked each candidate two or three. They weren't always the same two or three questions; there were concerns that some of the candidates might have stayed in Falmouth and were watching the earlier interviews, so I mixed them up a bit.
There was, however, one question that I asked of every candidate: Where do you see yourself in five years?
This was a retorical question. Everyone knew the answer ("As Falmouth's town manager") and everyone gave that same, basic answer.
So why ask it?
It was actually suggested by a constituent. He wanted to know that these individuals were in this for the long haul, rather than interested in putting in a few years and retiring or moving on to other opportunities.
Our neighbor wanted the answer, but anyone serious about the job would give the correct answer. I saw the question as an opportunity to dig a little deeper. Sometimes it's not the answer, but how they answer that provides the insight.
For example, when asked this question, one candidate answered, "Here."
Remember the old adage, "Actions speak louder than words"? One of the specific questions asked by another selectman was about management style. This answer - short and to the point - can also tell us about management style.
Another candidate answered, "Hopefully, perhaps still here." Hear the doubt? Is it about being able to do the job, or doubt about the job itself?
A third said he would live in Falmouth seasonally, renting here during the off-season and commuting from Martha's Vineyard (where he owns a home) during the summer. Obviously, there's the residency requirement in the charter, so living outside Falmouth - even if just for a few months out of the year - might require approval from the Board.
What does this answer tell us about this candidate? He's up-front and honest, willing to put things on the table that may not be well received.
The fourth candidate answered that it would be his "privilege and pleasure" to still be Falmouth's town manager five years from now. Carefully chosen words.
You can learn a lot from one question.
Showing posts with label Selectmen's Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Selectmen's Work. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Agenda for Town Manager Interviews
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2011 – 8:00 A.M.
SELECTMEN’S MEETING ROOM
8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Selectmen Meet to Organize
Interview #1
8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. Candidate Peter Fohlin Arrives/Introduction
8:45 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Candidate Interview (Fohlin)
9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Fohlin)
Flexible Time and Break
Interview #2
10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Candidate James Boudreau Arrives/Introduction
10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Candidate Interview (Boudreau)
11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Boudreau)
Flexible Time and Lunch
Interview #3
1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. Candidate Bonnie Therrien Arrives/Introduction
1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Candidate Interview (Therrien)
2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Therrien)
Flexible Time and Break
Interview #4
3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Candidate Julian Suso Arrives/Introduction
3:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Candidate Interview (Suso)
4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Suso)
Mary Pat Flynn, Chairman
Board of Selectmen
THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2011 – 8:00 A.M.
SELECTMEN’S MEETING ROOM
8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Selectmen Meet to Organize
Interview #1
8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. Candidate Peter Fohlin Arrives/Introduction
8:45 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Candidate Interview (Fohlin)
9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Fohlin)
Flexible Time and Break
Interview #2
10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Candidate James Boudreau Arrives/Introduction
10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Candidate Interview (Boudreau)
11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Boudreau)
Flexible Time and Lunch
Interview #3
1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. Candidate Bonnie Therrien Arrives/Introduction
1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Candidate Interview (Therrien)
2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Therrien)
Flexible Time and Break
Interview #4
3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Candidate Julian Suso Arrives/Introduction
3:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Candidate Interview (Suso)
4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Informal Candidate Discussion (Suso)
Mary Pat Flynn, Chairman
Board of Selectmen
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Playing by the rules
It's no secret - the Falmouth Enterprise and I just don't get along.
They do, however, deserve credit for publishing my rebuttal to their latest attacks on me.
What follows also appeared in the Friday, August 12, 2011 edition under the title, "Calls Enterprise To Task".
It's been called one of the most embarrassing moments in baseball history. In the eighth inning with one out, the batter grounds the ball back to the pitcher. Bronson Arroyo fields the ball and runs to the baseline to tag Alex Rodriguez. What happened next is as unforgettable as the ball passing between Bill Buckner's legs.
In case you're not a baseball fan, Rodriguez slapped at Arroyo's arm, the ball went loose, and Rodriguez made it to second base. Arroyo was initially charged with an error, but the umpires conferred and agreed – Rodriguez had violated the rules.
In the sport of politics, the press is supposed to be the umpire. The First Amendment of our Constitution specifically protects the freedom of the press so there is a watchdog to keep our politicians honest. Watergate comes to mind.
But what happens when this umpire doesn't do its job?
Every fall, the Board of Selectmen sets fees and fines for the coming year. It's a well advertised process, timed so that the public will have ample notice of any increase, and the anticipated revenue can be included in the budget for the coming year.
However, in June the Board departed from this well established process, changing the fines for expired parking meters three months after the budget had been approved by town meeting. When someone spoke out against this, the Falmouth Enterprise didn't join the chorus against this unprecedented change, it attacked the messenger.
The appointment of town committees is also a very well established process. The appointment policy makes it clear that the selectmen are to interview every incumbent when there's a challenger. However, in an unprecedented departure from the rules, the Board reappointed incumbents first and without interviews, excluding many new applicants. Again, someone spoke out against this. Again, the Enterprise criticized the messenger.
Unfortunately, this habit of shooting the messenger instead of looking out for the people is nothing new. In 2008, the people of Falmouth and town meeting made it clear that an investigation or inquiry into the high school renovation project was a priority. The Enterprise attacked the messenger, and told the public to move on.
Two years ago, the town manager traveled to a conference without prior approval of the Board, or naming an acting town manager in his absence. When someone brought attention to these violations of contract and town charter, the Enterprise didn't chastise anyone for failing to follow the rules. Instead, the paper admitted to having no idea what the contract said, and then chastised the messenger.
In each of these examples, I was the messenger.
Mr. Clarkson suggests that I should "play nice", but how about playing by the rules? For more than three years now, I've fought for the people of Falmouth, asking that our government follow the rules, and when the rules are not followed, that people are held accountable.
Unfortunately, the umpire in this game – the Falmouth Enterprise – has abdicated its responsibility. I find myself standing on the field like Arroyo, wondering why I'm getting charged with the error when it's the other guy who didn't follow the rules.
After the umpires sent Rodriguez packing, a hostile New York crowd resorted to throwing trash on the field. In spite of this, the Sox won the game, and became the first and only team to come back from a 0-3 deficit to win the championship.
Like every good Red Sox fan, I have faith – faith that no matter how much trash is thrown, and no matter what the odds, the good guy can indeed win in the end.
They do, however, deserve credit for publishing my rebuttal to their latest attacks on me.
What follows also appeared in the Friday, August 12, 2011 edition under the title, "Calls Enterprise To Task".
It's been called one of the most embarrassing moments in baseball history. In the eighth inning with one out, the batter grounds the ball back to the pitcher. Bronson Arroyo fields the ball and runs to the baseline to tag Alex Rodriguez. What happened next is as unforgettable as the ball passing between Bill Buckner's legs.
In case you're not a baseball fan, Rodriguez slapped at Arroyo's arm, the ball went loose, and Rodriguez made it to second base. Arroyo was initially charged with an error, but the umpires conferred and agreed – Rodriguez had violated the rules.
In the sport of politics, the press is supposed to be the umpire. The First Amendment of our Constitution specifically protects the freedom of the press so there is a watchdog to keep our politicians honest. Watergate comes to mind.
But what happens when this umpire doesn't do its job?
Every fall, the Board of Selectmen sets fees and fines for the coming year. It's a well advertised process, timed so that the public will have ample notice of any increase, and the anticipated revenue can be included in the budget for the coming year.
However, in June the Board departed from this well established process, changing the fines for expired parking meters three months after the budget had been approved by town meeting. When someone spoke out against this, the Falmouth Enterprise didn't join the chorus against this unprecedented change, it attacked the messenger.
The appointment of town committees is also a very well established process. The appointment policy makes it clear that the selectmen are to interview every incumbent when there's a challenger. However, in an unprecedented departure from the rules, the Board reappointed incumbents first and without interviews, excluding many new applicants. Again, someone spoke out against this. Again, the Enterprise criticized the messenger.
Unfortunately, this habit of shooting the messenger instead of looking out for the people is nothing new. In 2008, the people of Falmouth and town meeting made it clear that an investigation or inquiry into the high school renovation project was a priority. The Enterprise attacked the messenger, and told the public to move on.
Two years ago, the town manager traveled to a conference without prior approval of the Board, or naming an acting town manager in his absence. When someone brought attention to these violations of contract and town charter, the Enterprise didn't chastise anyone for failing to follow the rules. Instead, the paper admitted to having no idea what the contract said, and then chastised the messenger.
In each of these examples, I was the messenger.
Mr. Clarkson suggests that I should "play nice", but how about playing by the rules? For more than three years now, I've fought for the people of Falmouth, asking that our government follow the rules, and when the rules are not followed, that people are held accountable.
Unfortunately, the umpire in this game – the Falmouth Enterprise – has abdicated its responsibility. I find myself standing on the field like Arroyo, wondering why I'm getting charged with the error when it's the other guy who didn't follow the rules.
After the umpires sent Rodriguez packing, a hostile New York crowd resorted to throwing trash on the field. In spite of this, the Sox won the game, and became the first and only team to come back from a 0-3 deficit to win the championship.
Like every good Red Sox fan, I have faith – faith that no matter how much trash is thrown, and no matter what the odds, the good guy can indeed win in the end.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
surreptitious
surreptitious [sur-uhp-tish-uhs] adjective
obtained, done, made, etc., by stealth; secret or unauthorized; clandestine: a surreptitious glance.
Occasionally one hears talk of revisionist history. In other words, trying to change the truth about what really happened. It happens a lot in politics, even here in Falmouth. For example, last year a member of the Board said the tourism industry in Falmouth was dead. When it came time to approve the minutes, this selectman tried to change their statement. Fortunately, the rest of the Board refused to allow such revisionist history.
It doesn't always work that way, which is the reason for this particular post.
Recently, there's been a suggestion that the Committee Appointment Policy which the Board updated on May 16 was an 11th-hour job, done surreptitiously. Unfortunately for those who want us to believe this version of events, the record is quite different.
What follows are emails, sent on March 6, March 13, May 1 and May 10. As noted in the emails, the first three included attachments - copies of the policies which were to be discussed.
===== ===== ===== =====
From: Brent Putnam brent@falmouthlocal.com
Reply-to: brent@falmouthlocal.com
To: Board of Selectmen selectmen@falmouthmass.us
Subject: Draft policies for review
Date: 03/06/2011 10:41:42 PM
All,
I've attached some draft policies for your review. So that we adhere to the Open Meeting Law, please refrain from any discussion via email. We will be devoting some time on an agenda later this month to another policy discussion, so there will be ample time for discussion and debate then.
If any of you have a new or updated policy, please feel free to share it and I'll make sure it's also included in the agenda.
===== ===== ===== =====
From: Brent Putnam brent@falmouthlocal.com
Reply-to: brent@falmouthlocal.com
To: Board of Selectmen selectmen@falmouthmass.us
Subject: Policy
Date: 03/13/2011 09:24:51 PM
A reminder that we'll be discussing policy tomorrow evening. See attached, and bring any drafts/ideas/comments you may have.
===== ===== ===== =====
From: brent@falmouthlocal.com brent@falmouthlocal.com
To: Board of Selectmen selectmen@falmouthmass.us
Subject: Policies for May 2
Date: 05/01/2011 08:01:26 PM
All,
I've attached the policies & calendar we'll be discussing tomorrow evening. I know there may be revised versions of the policy, or revisions that need to be made, but I'm having trouble finding them right now. The online posting policy comes to mind.
If you have them, or can point me to them, let me know.
If necessary, we can begin discussing these tomorrow and finalize them on May 16.
Also attached is the calendar Diane has put together, and the liaison assignments list. Both will need to be reviewed and updated in preparation for the Board's reorganization on May 23. Again, we can review tomorrow and then finalize on May 16.
===== ===== ===== =====
From: brent@falmouthlocal.com brent@falmouthlocal.com
To: Board of Selectmen selectmen@falmouthmass.us
Subject: Policies
Date: 05/10/2011 10:10:46 PM
All,
A reminder that we'll be discussing policies on Monday. Please review the Liaison Policy, Appointment Policy and Online Posting Policy and be ready to vote these up or down.
You should all have copies of these policies; if you need a fresh one, let me know.
If there are changes you'd like to suggest, please send them to me ASAP and I will compile them into a final draft.
===== ===== ===== =====
Not only are these emails part of the public record, but because they were all sent to the selectmen@falmouthmass.us address, anyone can go to town hall and get copies of them.
The new policy is included here in this post. The old policy is still online, so you can see the changes. The biggest difference was a spin-off of the liaison part into a separate policy. Several members of the Board expressed concerns about the new Liaison Policy even before the meeting on May 16, so it was tabled.
However, even though the Board had received no less than three copies of the updated Committee Appointment Policy between March 6 and May 1, no one expressed any concerns about it until the meeting on May 16.
The last word here belongs to the official record, the minutes of May 2...
Policy Discussion: On-Line Posting Policy, Liaison Policy, Appointment Policy, Review Committee Handbook Policy and Review Calendar
Brent Putnam asked the Board members to take this home as homework. Look these over, including the Speakers Policy, and bring them back in two weeks, and we will vote them up or down, he said. Bring additions or subtractions. It was noted that there was no liaison for Coastal Ponds and no liaison between the Board and constables. The new Board will address this.
...and the minutes of May 16...
Policy Discussion: On-Line Posting Policy, Liaison Policy, Appointment Policy, Review Calendar and Liaison Assignments List.
Speaking on the calendar and liaison list, Brent Putnam said it is not set in stone; it just gives the Board an idea of the time issues. Additions or deletions should be given to Diane Davidson. Brent Putnam moved to accept the On-Line Posting Policy. Ahmed Mustafa seconded. 5-Yes, 0-No. Melissa Freitag thinks the Liaison Policy and the Committee Appointment Policy need lots of work. Mary Pat Flynn thinks the Liaison Policy should include what liaisons are not supposed to do as well. There was a brief discussion on what the Committee Appointment Policy accomplishes. Heather Harper said this policy will help the staff. Brent Putnam moved to approve the Committee Appointment Policy. Ahmed Mustafa seconded. 5-Yes, 0-No
Nothing surreptitious here.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
A government of laws, not of men
I went on a bit of a tirade Monday night, and some who watched it are probably wondering, "What's the big deal?"
Well, let's begin at the beginning.
In 2008, I was elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. It was no small victory: I unseated an incumbent that no one thought could be unseated. Indeed, one long-time political insider said to me, "I didn't see this coming."
In 2011, I was re-elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. Again, it was no small victory: Aside from myself, this campaign included a popular former fire chief, a former selectman, and a challenger (running for a third time) who had attracted 10x as many votes in his second run as in his first. Oh, and did I mention the 11th-hour write-in campaign by the same former selectman who I unseated in 2008?
Against this field of candidates, I again managed an impressive victory. The second and third place finishers - separated by just a few votes - had to wait weeks for a recount to decide who would get second place and the second seat. In the meantime, my margin of victory was more than enough to have me declared the first-place winner, so I was sworn-in.
Don't forget...the votes and victories are secondary to my platform...open, accountable and fiscally responsible town government. I won election and re-election because of what I promised - and delivered.
Open, accountable and fiscally responsible...in other words, good government - fair government.
Now, flash forward to the past month and ask that question again: "What's the big deal?"
I don't mind losing a vote.
In fact, I don't mind losing every vote.
But I really hate it when the rules are changed in the middle of the game, and that's exactly what happened with the appointment process over the past month.
That is not fair.
So I complained. Loudly.
"Come on...isn't this just sour grapes over being rejected for chair?"
This might be an good explanation if I hadn't already established a track record of questioning how the Board does business. For example, in 2008 I asked that every incumbent appointee be interviewed, regardless of whether they had a challenger. And in January 2009, I openly complained about the fact that we had just 30 minutes in one meeting allocated to discussing the budget.
"But if you didn't make these appointments, wouldn't that have jeopardized hearings?"
I'm not saying that we shouldn't appoint people, I'm saying that a process was in place, and it was tossed aside.
Just prior to the election, the Board reviewed a calendar that had - among other things - time allocated for interviews and appointments on June 27. However, when June 27 rolled around, we had a hearing for parking fees in Woods Hole, and a presentation about water quality.
The charter requires us to make these appointments. Parking fees and water quality may be important, but those appointments should have taken precedence. We spent two hours on optional topics (some would say political topics) instead of doing our job.
That is wrong.
Perhaps more importantly, for the past two years, if there are challengers to incumbent appointees, the Board has interviewed both the challengers and incumbents. There has been a level playing field and the challengers have a shot at unseating incumbents. This year, by reappointing the incumbents before interviewing the challengers, the Board effectively told the challengers that they were second-class citizens.
How many times have we lamented the lack of volunteers and the many vacancies on our various boards, committees and commissions?
By favoring the incumbents the way the Board did over the past month, we've essentially said, "Volunteers need not apply."
By changing the way we do business - by ignoring the charter and our policies- we have redefined town government to be one of men, not laws.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong, and there is no justification for it.
Well, let's begin at the beginning.
In 2008, I was elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. It was no small victory: I unseated an incumbent that no one thought could be unseated. Indeed, one long-time political insider said to me, "I didn't see this coming."
In 2011, I was re-elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. Again, it was no small victory: Aside from myself, this campaign included a popular former fire chief, a former selectman, and a challenger (running for a third time) who had attracted 10x as many votes in his second run as in his first. Oh, and did I mention the 11th-hour write-in campaign by the same former selectman who I unseated in 2008?
Against this field of candidates, I again managed an impressive victory. The second and third place finishers - separated by just a few votes - had to wait weeks for a recount to decide who would get second place and the second seat. In the meantime, my margin of victory was more than enough to have me declared the first-place winner, so I was sworn-in.
Don't forget...the votes and victories are secondary to my platform...open, accountable and fiscally responsible town government. I won election and re-election because of what I promised - and delivered.
Open, accountable and fiscally responsible...in other words, good government - fair government.
Now, flash forward to the past month and ask that question again: "What's the big deal?"
I don't mind losing a vote.
In fact, I don't mind losing every vote.
But I really hate it when the rules are changed in the middle of the game, and that's exactly what happened with the appointment process over the past month.
That is not fair.
So I complained. Loudly.
"Come on...isn't this just sour grapes over being rejected for chair?"
This might be an good explanation if I hadn't already established a track record of questioning how the Board does business. For example, in 2008 I asked that every incumbent appointee be interviewed, regardless of whether they had a challenger. And in January 2009, I openly complained about the fact that we had just 30 minutes in one meeting allocated to discussing the budget.
"But if you didn't make these appointments, wouldn't that have jeopardized hearings?"
I'm not saying that we shouldn't appoint people, I'm saying that a process was in place, and it was tossed aside.
Just prior to the election, the Board reviewed a calendar that had - among other things - time allocated for interviews and appointments on June 27. However, when June 27 rolled around, we had a hearing for parking fees in Woods Hole, and a presentation about water quality.
The charter requires us to make these appointments. Parking fees and water quality may be important, but those appointments should have taken precedence. We spent two hours on optional topics (some would say political topics) instead of doing our job.
That is wrong.
Perhaps more importantly, for the past two years, if there are challengers to incumbent appointees, the Board has interviewed both the challengers and incumbents. There has been a level playing field and the challengers have a shot at unseating incumbents. This year, by reappointing the incumbents before interviewing the challengers, the Board effectively told the challengers that they were second-class citizens.
How many times have we lamented the lack of volunteers and the many vacancies on our various boards, committees and commissions?
By favoring the incumbents the way the Board did over the past month, we've essentially said, "Volunteers need not apply."
By changing the way we do business - by ignoring the charter and our policies- we have redefined town government to be one of men, not laws.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong, and there is no justification for it.
Monday, May 16, 2011
BOARD OF SELECTMEN HEALTH INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY POLICY
Town of Falmouth
Board of Selectmen
BOARD OF SELECTMEN HEALTH INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY POLICY
DRAFT, May 16, 2011
Definitions
Applicability
This policy applies to the Board of Selectmen.
General Policy and Responsibility
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 32B, no member of the
Board of Selectmen of Falmouth shall be eligible for participation in the Town's contributory health insurance plan.
2. Individual selectmen who elect to pay one hundred percent of the cost of the health insurance plan may be deemed eligible to so participate.
3. Nothing in this policy shall affect the ability of any selectman who, as a former town employee, participates in the Town's contributory health insurance plan as part of their retirement benefits.
Board of Selectmen
BOARD OF SELECTMEN HEALTH INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY POLICY
DRAFT, May 16, 2011
Definitions
Applicability
This policy applies to the Board of Selectmen.
General Policy and Responsibility
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 32B, no member of the
Board of Selectmen of Falmouth shall be eligible for participation in the Town's contributory health insurance plan.
2. Individual selectmen who elect to pay one hundred percent of the cost of the health insurance plan may be deemed eligible to so participate.
3. Nothing in this policy shall affect the ability of any selectman who, as a former town employee, participates in the Town's contributory health insurance plan as part of their retirement benefits.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Board of Selectmen Agenda for May 16, 2011
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011 – 7:00 P.M.
SELECTMEN’S MEETING ROOM
1. 7:00 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENTS
PROCLAMATION – ROTARY GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE DAYS
PROCLAMATION – FALMOUTH ENGLAND – 350th CHARTER ANNIVERSARY
PROCLAMATION – POLICE WEEK
RESOLUTION –SENATE BILL 1687 - VERIZON
2. 7:05 P.M. MINUTES OF MEETING – MAY 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION APPROVE & RELEASE: MARCH 19, 2007, APRIL 30, 2007,
NOVEMBER 16, 2009, NOVEMBER 5, 2007,
EXECUTIVE SESSION APPROVE; NOT RELEASE: JULY 12, 2010, MARCH 22, 2011
3. 7:10 P.M. FALMOUTH HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE – COMMENDATIONS AWARD
PRESENTATIONS
4. 7:15 P.M. DISCUSS AND APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR USE OF
FULLER FIELD
5. 7:30 P.M. DISCUSS BEACH CLOSING TIMES AND VOTE FALMOUTH HEIGHTS
MANAGEMENT PLAN – BEACH COMMITTEE
6. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX FOR HOME RENTALS
7. 8:10 P.M. APPOINT TOWN MANAGER SCREENING COMMITTEE
8. 8:30 P.M. DISCUSS AND VOTE TO SECTION 32B ELIGIBILITY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO RECEIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
9. 8:40 P.M. DISCUSS AND VOTE CONSTABLE APPLICATION
10. 8:50 P.M. POLICY DISCUSSION
ON-LINE POSTING POLICY
LIAISON POLICY
APPOINTMENT POLICY
REVIEW CALENDAR AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS LIST
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS:
1.Sandwich Road Field Equipment Shed: Accept Donation from Babe Ruth Organization; Officially Name Ball Field “Sandwich Road Field”
2.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Fresh Pond Holy Ghost Society – 5/12/11, 6/25/11, 6/26/11
3.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Salt Pond Bird Sanctuaries - Bourne Farm – 6/11/11
4.Request for Special Event Permit – 31st Annual Paul E. White Memorial Road Race – 6/19/11
5.Woods Hole Golf Club, Inc. – Request for 10:00 a.m. Sunday Opening
6.Request for Wedding Permit – Stephanie Estrela – Bristol Beach – 6/12/11
7.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Falmouth Youth Hockey League – 5/29/11
8.Approve 2011 Annual Innholder’s License Renewal
9.Memorandum of Understanding – Together We Can, Inc. to Falmouth Dog Parks, Inc.
INDIVIDUAL SELECTMEN’S REPORTS
REVIEW OF TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
BRENT PUTNAM, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011 – 7:00 P.M.
SELECTMEN’S MEETING ROOM
1. 7:00 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENTS
PROCLAMATION – ROTARY GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE DAYS
PROCLAMATION – FALMOUTH ENGLAND – 350th CHARTER ANNIVERSARY
PROCLAMATION – POLICE WEEK
RESOLUTION –SENATE BILL 1687 - VERIZON
2. 7:05 P.M. MINUTES OF MEETING – MAY 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION APPROVE & RELEASE: MARCH 19, 2007, APRIL 30, 2007,
NOVEMBER 16, 2009, NOVEMBER 5, 2007,
EXECUTIVE SESSION APPROVE; NOT RELEASE: JULY 12, 2010, MARCH 22, 2011
3. 7:10 P.M. FALMOUTH HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE – COMMENDATIONS AWARD
PRESENTATIONS
4. 7:15 P.M. DISCUSS AND APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR USE OF
FULLER FIELD
5. 7:30 P.M. DISCUSS BEACH CLOSING TIMES AND VOTE FALMOUTH HEIGHTS
MANAGEMENT PLAN – BEACH COMMITTEE
6. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX FOR HOME RENTALS
7. 8:10 P.M. APPOINT TOWN MANAGER SCREENING COMMITTEE
8. 8:30 P.M. DISCUSS AND VOTE TO SECTION 32B ELIGIBILITY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO RECEIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
9. 8:40 P.M. DISCUSS AND VOTE CONSTABLE APPLICATION
10. 8:50 P.M. POLICY DISCUSSION
ON-LINE POSTING POLICY
LIAISON POLICY
APPOINTMENT POLICY
REVIEW CALENDAR AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS LIST
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS:
1.Sandwich Road Field Equipment Shed: Accept Donation from Babe Ruth Organization; Officially Name Ball Field “Sandwich Road Field”
2.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Fresh Pond Holy Ghost Society – 5/12/11, 6/25/11, 6/26/11
3.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Salt Pond Bird Sanctuaries - Bourne Farm – 6/11/11
4.Request for Special Event Permit – 31st Annual Paul E. White Memorial Road Race – 6/19/11
5.Woods Hole Golf Club, Inc. – Request for 10:00 a.m. Sunday Opening
6.Request for Wedding Permit – Stephanie Estrela – Bristol Beach – 6/12/11
7.Request for Special One-Day Liquor License – Falmouth Youth Hockey League – 5/29/11
8.Approve 2011 Annual Innholder’s License Renewal
9.Memorandum of Understanding – Together We Can, Inc. to Falmouth Dog Parks, Inc.
INDIVIDUAL SELECTMEN’S REPORTS
REVIEW OF TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
BRENT PUTNAM, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Fine Lines and the Law
A recent Cape Cod Times article (I've no link here because the Times now requires a subscription to view it online) stated that I wrote a personal letter to the state on behalf of Constable George Morse. The only "personal" part about it was that I personally wrote the letter.
Here's an excerpt: "It is my understanding that Mr. Morse filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination...Based on my admittedly cursory knowledge of Massachusetts law, I believe that M.G.L. Ch. 276 § 100C, and M.G.L. Ch. 151B, § 4, and 804 CMR 3.01 may have been violated."
I've no intention of pointing fingers or fanning flames, so this is the extent of what I'm willing to share at this point.
As a selectman, I must look out for the best interests of the town, and a state investigation or judgment against the town is clearly not in Falmouth's best interest. However, before I could take office as a selectman, I had to take an oath. I swore to uphold our laws.
What do you do when upholding the law may not be in the best interest of the community? Do the town's interests trump possible violations of the law?
The short answer is no, but we can handle the situation discretely.
I am sworn to uphold the law, and if the town did something wrong, the state needs to know. In this case, I saw what I thought was a violation of the law, so I reported it to the appropriate authorities. Withholding information or covering-up is never in our town's best interest. Hence, the letter.
Yet, few knew of the letter - written almost a year ago - until recently. Why? Shouting this from the treetops - telling everyone far and wide that we may have goofed - isn't the best way to handle this either.
It's a fine line, but one that leans toward the side of the law. As it always should.
Here's an excerpt: "It is my understanding that Mr. Morse filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination...Based on my admittedly cursory knowledge of Massachusetts law, I believe that M.G.L. Ch. 276 § 100C, and M.G.L. Ch. 151B, § 4, and 804 CMR 3.01 may have been violated."
I've no intention of pointing fingers or fanning flames, so this is the extent of what I'm willing to share at this point.
As a selectman, I must look out for the best interests of the town, and a state investigation or judgment against the town is clearly not in Falmouth's best interest. However, before I could take office as a selectman, I had to take an oath. I swore to uphold our laws.
What do you do when upholding the law may not be in the best interest of the community? Do the town's interests trump possible violations of the law?
The short answer is no, but we can handle the situation discretely.
I am sworn to uphold the law, and if the town did something wrong, the state needs to know. In this case, I saw what I thought was a violation of the law, so I reported it to the appropriate authorities. Withholding information or covering-up is never in our town's best interest. Hence, the letter.
Yet, few knew of the letter - written almost a year ago - until recently. Why? Shouting this from the treetops - telling everyone far and wide that we may have goofed - isn't the best way to handle this either.
It's a fine line, but one that leans toward the side of the law. As it always should.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
There is no manual
No doubt about it, this is the most difficult job I've ever had.The lack of a manual doesn't help. Sure, there is the accumulated knowledge of those who used to serve in the same role, but not all of that knowledge is good or useful. After all, these are the folks who "used to serve." It's hard to know who's mistake was truly a mistake, who's success was earned or accidential, what's still good, and what's outlived its usefulness.
For my part, I've my own naivete to deal with. There's an old saying, "It takes a thief to know one." The premise behind this saying is that we all look at the world through rose-colored glasses - that is, we see the world from our perspective.
I'd always assumed that people would work hard and do the right thing - it's the way I've lived my life. Indeed, as selectman, I have the option to join the state's retirement system and get health insurance through the town. I didn't, even when I lost my own job last year. I even donate my $3,000 stipend. As I see it, if I were to take anything, it would compromise the very principles that drove me to run for office in the first place.
It never occurred to me that some people in public service are either not serving the best interests of the public, or are serving themselves outright. Yes, I've run across this. Coming to grips with this truth has kept me awake at night.
The hardest thing to fathom is the picture some people paint about you. Don't misunderstand me, I know that perceptions can overwhelm reality. What bothers me are those who aren't willing to hear my side of the story, or who willingly repeat myths. For example, I've previously written about the conservation commission meetings I missed, yet there are those who, from time to time, still raise the issue, painting me as some kind of slacker.
Recently, several newspaper articles suggested that on my first day as a selectman I told our town manager that he should find work elsewhere. Again, this is false. Unfortunately, it not only has legs, but some folks take the papers as gospel and won't even give me the opportunity to explain. It's frustrating, probably because I've always given others the chance to set the record straight with me.
This is not to say that I've not made mistakes. On the contrary, I've made my fair share of mistakes, and I've taken a well-deserved few knocks for them. However, I've always tried to do the right thing. Although I've lost some sleep over the reality of human nature, I can still look myself in the mirror every morning.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
An opinion about Article 25
The parking lot at the Falmouth Heights Beach has been a bone of contention for some time now, and it is still unresolved. One question is a town meeting article from the early '70's which defined exactly how the lot would be managed. Does this still apply?
What follows is an email to town counsel, and the corresponding reply...
Frank,
I've a copy of Article 25 from an early 1970's town meeting (1973, I think, the page number is 34, but there is no year) which states that the hours of the Falmouth Heights Beach lot will be determined by a joint vote of the Selectmen, Beach Committee and Public Works Commissioners. It further notes that the use "shall be temporary".
Obviously, the latter no longer exists, but the question remains: Does this town meeting (which did pass) article still apply? Should the hours of operation be set during a joint meeting? What does it mean by "temporary"?
The Board has a request by the Heights Association to revisit this issue; we need to know if this article should govern the process.
Brent: In 1973 there was an elected Board of Public Works, an elected Beach Committee and an elected Board of Selectmen. The Falmouth Home Rule Charter abolished the Board of Public Works in 1991 and its powers were vested in the Board of Selectmen. The Beach Committee survives to this day, but now it is an appointed body with its members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. In 1973 the town meeting vote made sense because there were three elected boards meeting in joint session. That is no longer the case. The Board of Public Works does not exist. The charter has reduced the Beach Committee to an advisory role. "The Committee shall be responsible for recommending policies to the Board of Selectmen regarding the use and maintenance of all public town beaches." See s. C7-12B FHRC. Beach parking lots are an integral part of public beaches.
The 1973 vote has effectively been superseded by the charter. It would be improper for an elected board (BOS) to meet in joint session with a board it appoints (BC) under circumstance where a majority of those present prevail. Under the present governmental structure, the Board of Selectmen votes the matter with a recommendation from the Beach Committee.
Temporary implies that something is limited in time as opposed to perpetual or indefinite. Perhaps at one time there was a vote as authorized by Article 25 which contains a time limitation. If it can be found, it may contain an answer. If not, then the answer is that the last vote survives until it is superseded by the next vote.
What follows is an email to town counsel, and the corresponding reply...
Frank,
I've a copy of Article 25 from an early 1970's town meeting (1973, I think, the page number is 34, but there is no year) which states that the hours of the Falmouth Heights Beach lot will be determined by a joint vote of the Selectmen, Beach Committee and Public Works Commissioners. It further notes that the use "shall be temporary".
Obviously, the latter no longer exists, but the question remains: Does this town meeting (which did pass) article still apply? Should the hours of operation be set during a joint meeting? What does it mean by "temporary"?
The Board has a request by the Heights Association to revisit this issue; we need to know if this article should govern the process.
Brent: In 1973 there was an elected Board of Public Works, an elected Beach Committee and an elected Board of Selectmen. The Falmouth Home Rule Charter abolished the Board of Public Works in 1991 and its powers were vested in the Board of Selectmen. The Beach Committee survives to this day, but now it is an appointed body with its members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. In 1973 the town meeting vote made sense because there were three elected boards meeting in joint session. That is no longer the case. The Board of Public Works does not exist. The charter has reduced the Beach Committee to an advisory role. "The Committee shall be responsible for recommending policies to the Board of Selectmen regarding the use and maintenance of all public town beaches." See s. C7-12B FHRC. Beach parking lots are an integral part of public beaches.
The 1973 vote has effectively been superseded by the charter. It would be improper for an elected board (BOS) to meet in joint session with a board it appoints (BC) under circumstance where a majority of those present prevail. Under the present governmental structure, the Board of Selectmen votes the matter with a recommendation from the Beach Committee.
Temporary implies that something is limited in time as opposed to perpetual or indefinite. Perhaps at one time there was a vote as authorized by Article 25 which contains a time limitation. If it can be found, it may contain an answer. If not, then the answer is that the last vote survives until it is superseded by the next vote.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Liaisons
What follows is an email sent to the Board at 10:49am on Sunday, September 12, 2010:
All,
Attached are the draft liaison assignments. I use the term "draft" only because it may not be complete - there could be more assignments to come.
According to the charter, "The Board shall maintain liaison with all boards, commissions and committees..." (§ C3-7. E.) However, as I was reviewing the list, it became apparent that some were missing. For example, the Council on Aging and the Library Trustees.
Last year's list had 30 committees listed; this list has 38, but there may be still more, as I've heard that we had upwards of 60.
If so, the assignments listed won't change, it will simply have additions.
For the most part, everyone got their requests. Where there were conflicts, seniority took precedence. You'll note that I have liaison to the other elected boards; we should consider making this an established practice.
I apologize for the various emails and attachments. I've been working with Carole to establish our agendas earlier so that all of the information can be provided at once and far enough in advance so we've time to review it. I hope to establish some procedures around this soon.
--
==========================
Brent Putnam
Chairman
Falmouth Board of Selectman
508-444-0222
www.FalmouthLocal.com
==========================
All,
Attached are the draft liaison assignments. I use the term "draft" only because it may not be complete - there could be more assignments to come.
According to the charter, "The Board shall maintain liaison with all boards, commissions and committees..." (§ C3-7. E.) However, as I was reviewing the list, it became apparent that some were missing. For example, the Council on Aging and the Library Trustees.
Last year's list had 30 committees listed; this list has 38, but there may be still more, as I've heard that we had upwards of 60.
If so, the assignments listed won't change, it will simply have additions.
For the most part, everyone got their requests. Where there were conflicts, seniority took precedence. You'll note that I have liaison to the other elected boards; we should consider making this an established practice.
I apologize for the various emails and attachments. I've been working with Carole to establish our agendas earlier so that all of the information can be provided at once and far enough in advance so we've time to review it. I hope to establish some procedures around this soon.
--
==========================
Brent Putnam
Chairman
Falmouth Board of Selectman
508-444-0222
www.FalmouthLocal.com
==========================
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Remembering September 11, 2001
What follows is the text of a brief speech I made this morning at the observance of September 11, 2001 held at the Falmouth Fire Station Headquarters:
On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives. Many of those individuals did so in the line of duty; firemen and policemen who put their own safety at risk to save others. People we call heroes.
What is it that makes a hero? It is often a call to something higher, something greater than ourselves: Duty, honor, helping others.
The Boy Scout oath begins, "On my honor I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country..." It goes on to say "To help other people at all times..." Honor, duty, helping others - the things that make heroes.
For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts have instilled these principles in our boys and young men. Principles that are practiced daily by our police, and fire and rescue departments. Principles that on September 11, 2001, gave men and women the courage to become heroes.
It is fitting, therefore, that as we honor the memory of those who died on September 11, 2001, we have with us today members of Falmouth Cub Scout Packs 41 and 43, and Boy Scout Troops 38, 40 and 42. These scouts will present to the Falmouth Police Department and the Falmouth Fire Rescue Department, flags, donated by the Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, and by the Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings. The Flag of Honor and the Flag of Heroes.
On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives. Many of those individuals did so in the line of duty; firemen and policemen who put their own safety at risk to save others. People we call heroes.
What is it that makes a hero? It is often a call to something higher, something greater than ourselves: Duty, honor, helping others.
The Boy Scout oath begins, "On my honor I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country..." It goes on to say "To help other people at all times..." Honor, duty, helping others - the things that make heroes.
For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts have instilled these principles in our boys and young men. Principles that are practiced daily by our police, and fire and rescue departments. Principles that on September 11, 2001, gave men and women the courage to become heroes.
It is fitting, therefore, that as we honor the memory of those who died on September 11, 2001, we have with us today members of Falmouth Cub Scout Packs 41 and 43, and Boy Scout Troops 38, 40 and 42. These scouts will present to the Falmouth Police Department and the Falmouth Fire Rescue Department, flags, donated by the Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, and by the Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings. The Flag of Honor and the Flag of Heroes.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
What!?! No meetings?!?
The lack of formal selectmen's meetings over the past several weeks doesn't mean that we've not been meeting. For my part, I've had quite a few meetings, including...
- Met with office staff to review future agendas and schedule agenda items;
- Met with the town manager and vice chair to review open issues and future agendas;
- Went to the Conservation Committee meeting, which was postponed due to improper public posting;
- Met with a resident who had some complaints about the Conservation Commission, and then - by accident - ran into a resident and discussed various town issues;
- Met with the chair of the Board of Health;
- Had an emergency executive session to discuss the Retirement Board court action;
- Attended a budget subcommittee meeting;
- Attended the Bikeways Committee meeting; and
- Met with several members of the Affirmative Action Committee.
This doesn't include the emails read, responded-to, and filed, or the phone calls taken or returned.
- Met with office staff to review future agendas and schedule agenda items;
- Met with the town manager and vice chair to review open issues and future agendas;
- Went to the Conservation Committee meeting, which was postponed due to improper public posting;
- Met with a resident who had some complaints about the Conservation Commission, and then - by accident - ran into a resident and discussed various town issues;
- Met with the chair of the Board of Health;
- Had an emergency executive session to discuss the Retirement Board court action;
- Attended a budget subcommittee meeting;
- Attended the Bikeways Committee meeting; and
- Met with several members of the Affirmative Action Committee.
This doesn't include the emails read, responded-to, and filed, or the phone calls taken or returned.
Friday, August 20, 2010
November Town Meeting schedule
Selectmen Announce Annual Town Meeting: Monday, August 16, 2010
Close Warrant: Friday, September 3, 2010
Selectmen Vote Articles and Execute Warrant: Monday, September 20, 2010
Publish Articles Only: Friday, September 24, 2010
Selectmen Vote Article Recommendations: Monday, October 4, 2010
Publish Warrant with Recommendations: Friday, October 29, 2010
Town Meeting: Monday, November 15, 2010
Close Warrant: Friday, September 3, 2010
Selectmen Vote Articles and Execute Warrant: Monday, September 20, 2010
Publish Articles Only: Friday, September 24, 2010
Selectmen Vote Article Recommendations: Monday, October 4, 2010
Publish Warrant with Recommendations: Friday, October 29, 2010
Town Meeting: Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Code of Conduct of the Board of Selectmen
1. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in relation to his or her community should:
a) Realize that his or her basic function is to make policy, with administration delegated to the Town Manager.
b) Realize that he or she is one of a team and shall abide by, and carry out, all Board decisions once they are made.
c) Be well informed concerning the duties of a Board member on both local and state levels.
d) Remember that he or she represents the entire community at all times.
e) Accept the role of a member is a means of unselfish service, not to benefit personally or politically from his or her Board activities.
f) Abide by the ethics guidelines established by the State and not use the position of Selectmen to obtain inside information on matters that may benefit someone personally.
2. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with the Town Manager, should:
a) Endeavor to establish sound, clearly defined policies that will direct and support the administration of or the benefit of the staff and residents of the community.
b) Recognize and support the administrative chain of command and refuse to act on complaints as an individual outside the administration.
c) Give the Town Manager full responsibility for discharging his or her disposition and/or solutions.
d) Not give instructions to Town department heads, but rather channel all such activities through the full Board and the Town Manager.
3. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with fellow Board members, should:
a) Recognize that action at official legal meetings is binding and that he or she alone cannot bind the Board outside of such meetings.
b) Not make statements or promises of how he or she will vote on matters that will come before the Board until he or she has had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons of the issue during a Board meeting.
c) Uphold the intent of executive session and respect the privileged communication that exists in executive session.
d) Make decisions only after all facts on a question have been presented and discussed.
e) Refrain from communicating the position of the Board of Selectmen to anyone unless the full Board has previously agreed on both the position and the language of the statement conveying the position.
f) Treat with respect the rights of all members of the Board despite differences of opinion.
4. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with Town staff, should:
a) Treat all staff as professionals, with clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual.
b) Limit contact to specific Town staff; questions of Town staff and/or requests for additional background information should be directed only to the Town Manager, Town Counsel, Assistant Town Manager, Administrative Assistants in the Town Manager & Selectmen's office, or Department heads. The office of the Town Manager should be copied on all requests or correspondence.
c) Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Concerns about staff performance should only be made to the Town Manager through private conversation.
d) Limit requests for staff support, and insure that all requests go through the Town Manager's office.
e) Insure than any materials or information provided to a Selectmen from a staff member be made available to all Selectmen.
5. The Chair of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with the public, the Board and Town staff, should:
a) Develop an agenda based on the Town Charter, the Strategic Plan, and the Town bylaws.
b) Facilitate the requests of the other selectmen, including agenda items and requests for information.
c) Run the meetings according to an agreed upon set of rules so that everyone understands how to conduct business, and all are treated fairly and equally.
d) Understand that the Chair serves at the pleasure of the Board to run the Board's meetings and develop the agenda. In all other respects, the Chair is an equal member of the Board who possesses no special authority or privilege.
e) Act as the voice of the Board and represent the decisions of the Board when requested from the media.
Note: This code of conduct was developed based on similar codes used by other elected boards and committees in other communities.
a) Realize that his or her basic function is to make policy, with administration delegated to the Town Manager.
b) Realize that he or she is one of a team and shall abide by, and carry out, all Board decisions once they are made.
c) Be well informed concerning the duties of a Board member on both local and state levels.
d) Remember that he or she represents the entire community at all times.
e) Accept the role of a member is a means of unselfish service, not to benefit personally or politically from his or her Board activities.
f) Abide by the ethics guidelines established by the State and not use the position of Selectmen to obtain inside information on matters that may benefit someone personally.
2. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with the Town Manager, should:
a) Endeavor to establish sound, clearly defined policies that will direct and support the administration of or the benefit of the staff and residents of the community.
b) Recognize and support the administrative chain of command and refuse to act on complaints as an individual outside the administration.
c) Give the Town Manager full responsibility for discharging his or her disposition and/or solutions.
d) Not give instructions to Town department heads, but rather channel all such activities through the full Board and the Town Manager.
3. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with fellow Board members, should:
a) Recognize that action at official legal meetings is binding and that he or she alone cannot bind the Board outside of such meetings.
b) Not make statements or promises of how he or she will vote on matters that will come before the Board until he or she has had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons of the issue during a Board meeting.
c) Uphold the intent of executive session and respect the privileged communication that exists in executive session.
d) Make decisions only after all facts on a question have been presented and discussed.
e) Refrain from communicating the position of the Board of Selectmen to anyone unless the full Board has previously agreed on both the position and the language of the statement conveying the position.
f) Treat with respect the rights of all members of the Board despite differences of opinion.
4. A member of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with Town staff, should:
a) Treat all staff as professionals, with clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual.
b) Limit contact to specific Town staff; questions of Town staff and/or requests for additional background information should be directed only to the Town Manager, Town Counsel, Assistant Town Manager, Administrative Assistants in the Town Manager & Selectmen's office, or Department heads. The office of the Town Manager should be copied on all requests or correspondence.
c) Never publicly criticize an individual employee. Concerns about staff performance should only be made to the Town Manager through private conversation.
d) Limit requests for staff support, and insure that all requests go through the Town Manager's office.
e) Insure than any materials or information provided to a Selectmen from a staff member be made available to all Selectmen.
5. The Chair of the Board of Selectmen, in his or her relations with the public, the Board and Town staff, should:
a) Develop an agenda based on the Town Charter, the Strategic Plan, and the Town bylaws.
b) Facilitate the requests of the other selectmen, including agenda items and requests for information.
c) Run the meetings according to an agreed upon set of rules so that everyone understands how to conduct business, and all are treated fairly and equally.
d) Understand that the Chair serves at the pleasure of the Board to run the Board's meetings and develop the agenda. In all other respects, the Chair is an equal member of the Board who possesses no special authority or privilege.
e) Act as the voice of the Board and represent the decisions of the Board when requested from the media.
Note: This code of conduct was developed based on similar codes used by other elected boards and committees in other communities.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Budget Workshop preparation
What follows is an email sent to the selectmen on Sunday, July 25 @ 9:51pm:
Shortly after my election as chair, Gary Anderson extended an offer to meet, asking that we build on the relationship between the selectmen and FinComm. As Pat was former chair, I asked that she attend in order to maintain the continuity of the relationship.
He, Pat and I did so this past Tuesday, and we discussed a great many items. From that meeting, I developed this list (below) as a guide for our budget workshop on August 3.
Please, scan the list and let me know 1) which items you wish to address first, and 2) any items you think should be added. I will compile the responses and provide them later this week as a guide for our agenda.
Please, reply only to me - do not reply to all - so that we avoid getting tangled in any open meeting law issues.
FY10 close-out
FY11 balance/$400k state cut/5-day furlough details
FY12 planning & budget policy statement
Combining Treasurer/Collector positions/departments
Finance Director
Outside auditor to document Treasurer's role, responsibilities, etc.
Bond rating
Budget policies
Costing services, i.e., What does it cost to run town government?
Program budgeting
Performance management & measurement
Fees - Water/sewer, Enterprise funding
Grants - grant writer for town?
Grants - analysis of long term cost, i.e., Are grants a foot-in-the-door proposition?
Department consolidation - school & town have building maintenance, janitorial services, HR, Finance; town & county have Weights & Measures, Human Resources
Strategic Plan needs to tie-in with Local Comprehensive Plan and budget
Combine capital & operating budgets (interest for the capital budget is already included in the operating budget)
New finance software
Debt exclusions - combinations vs. separate, prioritization
Regionalization - Weights & Measures, Collector
Also, as a primer, you may want to visit http://www.seagov.org This website is a compilation of financial reports & efficiency efforts of a number of towns.
Shortly after my election as chair, Gary Anderson extended an offer to meet, asking that we build on the relationship between the selectmen and FinComm. As Pat was former chair, I asked that she attend in order to maintain the continuity of the relationship.
He, Pat and I did so this past Tuesday, and we discussed a great many items. From that meeting, I developed this list (below) as a guide for our budget workshop on August 3.
Please, scan the list and let me know 1) which items you wish to address first, and 2) any items you think should be added. I will compile the responses and provide them later this week as a guide for our agenda.
Please, reply only to me - do not reply to all - so that we avoid getting tangled in any open meeting law issues.
FY10 close-out
FY11 balance/$400k state cut/5-day furlough details
FY12 planning & budget policy statement
Combining Treasurer/Collector positions/departments
Finance Director
Outside auditor to document Treasurer's role, responsibilities, etc.
Bond rating
Budget policies
Costing services, i.e., What does it cost to run town government?
Program budgeting
Performance management & measurement
Fees - Water/sewer, Enterprise funding
Grants - grant writer for town?
Grants - analysis of long term cost, i.e., Are grants a foot-in-the-door proposition?
Department consolidation - school & town have building maintenance, janitorial services, HR, Finance; town & county have Weights & Measures, Human Resources
Strategic Plan needs to tie-in with Local Comprehensive Plan and budget
Combine capital & operating budgets (interest for the capital budget is already included in the operating budget)
New finance software
Debt exclusions - combinations vs. separate, prioritization
Regionalization - Weights & Measures, Collector
Also, as a primer, you may want to visit http://www.seagov.org This website is a compilation of financial reports & efficiency efforts of a number of towns.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What was he thinking?
It was probably ten years ago when my wife and I and some friends were returning from a night out in Sandwich when we ended up behind an erratic driver on Route 130. We called 911 and were connected to Sandwich, Mashpee, Barnstable, and back to Mashpee as each police department asked us to follow the car if we could do so safely.
"Safely" was the operative word here. It was nighttime, so we couldn't see if the driver was male or female, old or young. What we could see was that they were crossing the line, nearly hitting several cars head-on. We kept our distance, but stayed close enough to give the police a description of the car and an eye on its direction.
Mashpee arranged a road block near the rotary. We were on the phone with them when we passed the police cars. We flashed the cars even as we were shouting, "That's us with the lights! He's right in front of us!" The police pulled onto the road, threw on their lights as they passed us, and pulled the driver off the road.
And so, when George Morse was taken to task for doing the exact same thing - following an erratic driver while on the phone with the police - I found myself scratching my head.
Another issue that was raised was Mr. Morse's red light permit. Again, things didn't add up. The permit was issued by the fire chief. Clearly, Chief Brodeur thought that Mr. Morse would use the light responsibly. Indeed, when Mr. Morse's term as constable ended, he immediately returned the permit without being asked. Is that not a demonstration of good character?
After the Monday vote, someone took me to task for allowing Mr. Morse to explain these. But why wouldn't we allow that? If we are going to accuse someone of doing something inappropriate, do they not have the right to rebuttal?
Some have taken issue with Mr. Mustafa's statements about the Constitution, but I agree with him. We cannot accuse someone of doing something inappropriate, nefarious, or illegal without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. Not only is it common courtesy, it's the law.
Think about it...What if you were the one being accused?
A few years back, my wife had her license suspended.
If that was all you knew, what would you think?
In fact, she forgot to pay her excise tax, so the registry suspended her license. However, because she was never stopped by the police - it's fair to say that she's a good driver - we didn't learn about this until she went to renew her license.
Now what do you think?
As I noted during the meeting, Mr. Morse was required to provide only five references, one of which must be a lawyer. All told, he provided nearly four dozen. Most were in writing, some were in person, and a few were over the phone - calls that came directly to me and other members of the Board. Instead of just one lawyer, four stood for him, including two retired judges. Businessmen, retired women and even the father of a woman he arrested provided glowing references.
Only at funerals have I seen more people speak so highly of a man.
Now you know what I was thinking, and why I voted for Mr. Morse.
"Safely" was the operative word here. It was nighttime, so we couldn't see if the driver was male or female, old or young. What we could see was that they were crossing the line, nearly hitting several cars head-on. We kept our distance, but stayed close enough to give the police a description of the car and an eye on its direction.
Mashpee arranged a road block near the rotary. We were on the phone with them when we passed the police cars. We flashed the cars even as we were shouting, "That's us with the lights! He's right in front of us!" The police pulled onto the road, threw on their lights as they passed us, and pulled the driver off the road.
And so, when George Morse was taken to task for doing the exact same thing - following an erratic driver while on the phone with the police - I found myself scratching my head.
Another issue that was raised was Mr. Morse's red light permit. Again, things didn't add up. The permit was issued by the fire chief. Clearly, Chief Brodeur thought that Mr. Morse would use the light responsibly. Indeed, when Mr. Morse's term as constable ended, he immediately returned the permit without being asked. Is that not a demonstration of good character?
After the Monday vote, someone took me to task for allowing Mr. Morse to explain these. But why wouldn't we allow that? If we are going to accuse someone of doing something inappropriate, do they not have the right to rebuttal?
Some have taken issue with Mr. Mustafa's statements about the Constitution, but I agree with him. We cannot accuse someone of doing something inappropriate, nefarious, or illegal without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. Not only is it common courtesy, it's the law.
Think about it...What if you were the one being accused?
A few years back, my wife had her license suspended.
If that was all you knew, what would you think?
In fact, she forgot to pay her excise tax, so the registry suspended her license. However, because she was never stopped by the police - it's fair to say that she's a good driver - we didn't learn about this until she went to renew her license.
Now what do you think?
As I noted during the meeting, Mr. Morse was required to provide only five references, one of which must be a lawyer. All told, he provided nearly four dozen. Most were in writing, some were in person, and a few were over the phone - calls that came directly to me and other members of the Board. Instead of just one lawyer, four stood for him, including two retired judges. Businessmen, retired women and even the father of a woman he arrested provided glowing references.
Only at funerals have I seen more people speak so highly of a man.
Now you know what I was thinking, and why I voted for Mr. Morse.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Agenda
Conventional wisdom tells us that every politician has an agenda. Usually, it's a secret - if not nefarious - plan that, if revealed publicly, would result in the politician being run out of town at the end of a pitchfork.
I've previously written about my own agenda, which is neither secret, nor nefarious.
The charter is the town constitution. It outlines how our government is structured and provides a blueprint for how it should be run. Regarding the latter, there are a lot of things the Board is required to do, but for whatever reason, it doesn't do them.
So, if you want to know my agenda, read the charter.
[an aside...for those unfamilar with the § character, this is the legalise abbreviation for "section", so §C3 = Section C3]
Under §C3-2.A. the Board sets policy. Basically, this is the Board's way of making law. We began attacking this last week, but there is much work to be done. A lot of our policies haven't been reviewed in more than a decade, and there are a number of draft policies that need to be reviewed and acted-upon.
§C3-3.C. and §C8-3.C. is the oft neglected budget policy statement, due by November 1st. There is a lot of interest to do more with the budget.
§C3-3.A. requires the Board to develop a long-range plan. This is the 5-year strategic plan which is the object of the Board's annual retreat. Last year, we started this, but didn't finish.
§C7-2. defines a number of boards, committees and commissions, including the Board of Assessors, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Council on Aging, Historical Commission, Recreation Committee, Waterways Committee, Beach Committee, Human Services Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Historic Districts Commission. §C7-2.C. requires that these boards meet with the selectmen at least once a year. Last year, the selectmen talked about issues-based meetings; since we must meet with these boards, they are good candidates for such meetings.
Meetings are also required by §C3-3.B. - in this case, the Planning Board (at least two meetings/year).
§C3-7.E. Requires that the Board keep liaison with all boards, committees and commissions. These are the liaison assignments that the Board discusses every year.
One piece of unfinished business is §C5-9.A., the town manager's evaluation. Several months ago, the Board agreed that the current evaluation process is inadequate. So, our procedures and criteria for the evaluation will probably be adjusted in the coming months.
Speaking of the town manager, there was that proposal a few months back to combine the treasurer and collector positions. §C5-7.A. requires approval of the Board for any establishment, reorganization, consolidation or abolishment of "any division, department or position under the Manager’s direction and supervision." Likewise, §C5-7.B. requires the approval by the Board for the "creation of any additional permanent, compensated position." As with the evaluation, we'll likely revisit this, but in more depth.
There is also §C5-3.B.(4) which requires the town manager to keep the Board appraised of "all departmental operations, fiscal affairs, general problems and administrative actions..." Note that it refers to all departments. Frankly, there have been deficiencies here. During my tenure on the Board, we've heard from some departments, such as the DPW, as many as four times a year. Other departments, such as Inspectional Services, have never been before the Board at all.
There are a few parts of the charter, such as §C9-9.A., which aren't typically invoked. This particular section requires that a Bylaw Revision Committee be appointed every five (5) years beginning in 1990. Do the math...it's 2010.
The last part of the charter worth mentioning is §C3-2.B., which directs the selectmen to recommend "major courses of action to the Town Meeting."
In other words, provide leadership.
I've previously written about my own agenda, which is neither secret, nor nefarious.
The charter is the town constitution. It outlines how our government is structured and provides a blueprint for how it should be run. Regarding the latter, there are a lot of things the Board is required to do, but for whatever reason, it doesn't do them.
So, if you want to know my agenda, read the charter.
[an aside...for those unfamilar with the § character, this is the legalise abbreviation for "section", so §C3 = Section C3]
Under §C3-2.A. the Board sets policy. Basically, this is the Board's way of making law. We began attacking this last week, but there is much work to be done. A lot of our policies haven't been reviewed in more than a decade, and there are a number of draft policies that need to be reviewed and acted-upon.
§C3-3.C. and §C8-3.C. is the oft neglected budget policy statement, due by November 1st. There is a lot of interest to do more with the budget.
§C3-3.A. requires the Board to develop a long-range plan. This is the 5-year strategic plan which is the object of the Board's annual retreat. Last year, we started this, but didn't finish.
§C7-2. defines a number of boards, committees and commissions, including the Board of Assessors, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Council on Aging, Historical Commission, Recreation Committee, Waterways Committee, Beach Committee, Human Services Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Historic Districts Commission. §C7-2.C. requires that these boards meet with the selectmen at least once a year. Last year, the selectmen talked about issues-based meetings; since we must meet with these boards, they are good candidates for such meetings.
Meetings are also required by §C3-3.B. - in this case, the Planning Board (at least two meetings/year).
§C3-7.E. Requires that the Board keep liaison with all boards, committees and commissions. These are the liaison assignments that the Board discusses every year.
One piece of unfinished business is §C5-9.A., the town manager's evaluation. Several months ago, the Board agreed that the current evaluation process is inadequate. So, our procedures and criteria for the evaluation will probably be adjusted in the coming months.
Speaking of the town manager, there was that proposal a few months back to combine the treasurer and collector positions. §C5-7.A. requires approval of the Board for any establishment, reorganization, consolidation or abolishment of "any division, department or position under the Manager’s direction and supervision." Likewise, §C5-7.B. requires the approval by the Board for the "creation of any additional permanent, compensated position." As with the evaluation, we'll likely revisit this, but in more depth.
There is also §C5-3.B.(4) which requires the town manager to keep the Board appraised of "all departmental operations, fiscal affairs, general problems and administrative actions..." Note that it refers to all departments. Frankly, there have been deficiencies here. During my tenure on the Board, we've heard from some departments, such as the DPW, as many as four times a year. Other departments, such as Inspectional Services, have never been before the Board at all.
There are a few parts of the charter, such as §C9-9.A., which aren't typically invoked. This particular section requires that a Bylaw Revision Committee be appointed every five (5) years beginning in 1990. Do the math...it's 2010.
The last part of the charter worth mentioning is §C3-2.B., which directs the selectmen to recommend "major courses of action to the Town Meeting."
In other words, provide leadership.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
A done deal?
Some folks seem to think that the decision to put Mr. Morse on Monday's agenda was a railroad job, intended to just slide him in without a proper interview. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, but I'll let you decide.
What follows is an email - which speaks for itself - that I sent to the Board on Thursday, June 24 at 10:22pm.
All,
There have been a few questions about Monday's agenda; this email is intended to clarify those.
Bob contacted me on Wednesday with a request that we remove Ballymeade due to the recent boil water order. He felt that with the recent events, the Water Department wouldn't be ready. Because of this, I had to fill the time slot at the last minute. I operated under the assumption - and I hope you all agree - that it would be better to have consistent 2-3 hour meetings than to have a 1 hour meeting this week, and a 4 hour meeting next.
As to the specific questions:
CONTINUED INTERVIEW & VOTE FOR CONSTABLE
Yes, this is for George Morse. I received a letter from Mr. Morse requesting that the Board, "take a vote in regards to my constable status..." I want to avoid any discussion or deliberation via email, so I'll say only that nothing is cast in stone and we can discuss how to proceed with this on Monday.
POLICY REVIEW & DISCUSSION
Yes, I've ordered copies of the policy binder (at my expense); they should be ready and in your boxes (in town hall) early Friday evening. If you'd prefer, I can deliver them to you personally some time this weekend. Yes, there are a lot of policies, but I don't think any of us expects to get through them all in one night. As to the specifically itemized policies, most are not "new" (some were originally drafted more than a year ago) but are perhaps new to us.
Brent
What follows is an email - which speaks for itself - that I sent to the Board on Thursday, June 24 at 10:22pm.
All,
There have been a few questions about Monday's agenda; this email is intended to clarify those.
Bob contacted me on Wednesday with a request that we remove Ballymeade due to the recent boil water order. He felt that with the recent events, the Water Department wouldn't be ready. Because of this, I had to fill the time slot at the last minute. I operated under the assumption - and I hope you all agree - that it would be better to have consistent 2-3 hour meetings than to have a 1 hour meeting this week, and a 4 hour meeting next.
As to the specific questions:
CONTINUED INTERVIEW & VOTE FOR CONSTABLE
Yes, this is for George Morse. I received a letter from Mr. Morse requesting that the Board, "take a vote in regards to my constable status..." I want to avoid any discussion or deliberation via email, so I'll say only that nothing is cast in stone and we can discuss how to proceed with this on Monday.
POLICY REVIEW & DISCUSSION
Yes, I've ordered copies of the policy binder (at my expense); they should be ready and in your boxes (in town hall) early Friday evening. If you'd prefer, I can deliver them to you personally some time this weekend. Yes, there are a lot of policies, but I don't think any of us expects to get through them all in one night. As to the specifically itemized policies, most are not "new" (some were originally drafted more than a year ago) but are perhaps new to us.
Brent
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Special Selectmen's meeting, Thursday @ 5pm
Board of Selectmen
Thursday, June 24, 2010 – 5:00 P.M.
Selectmen's Meeting Room
1) To consider appointing an independent third party to investigate the events surrounding the boil water order.
2) To consider taking additional actions as needed, including - but not limited to - the distribution of water, in response to the boil water order.
Thursday, June 24, 2010 – 5:00 P.M.
Selectmen's Meeting Room
1) To consider appointing an independent third party to investigate the events surrounding the boil water order.
2) To consider taking additional actions as needed, including - but not limited to - the distribution of water, in response to the boil water order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)