Thoughts on Appointments

As I begin my post-election journey serving the residents of Sturbridge, there are many items that will warrant consideration in addition to those outlined in my 7-Point Plan for the First 12 Months. Clearly, the manner by which government projects itself is one of them.

There is little doubt that locally and regionally we have gained a reputation that is less than positive regarding the manner by which we deal with residents and proponents. This reputation - real or perceived - is one that is not completely undeserved. In visiting and speaking with hundreds of residents I have been witness to a great deal of dissatisfaction and frustration among those who have had occasion to interact with some local officials. Undoubtedly, attention is warranted.

The effective projection of sound governance is accomplished only when so done in a manner respectful of and toward those it serves. Successful communities manifest as a direct by-product of principled governance, not in spite of it. Bearing such in mind, one might suggest that a fundamental shift is warranted by some representatives if we are to thrive as a community. Simply stated, we – elected and appointed officials - are here to serve the people; they are not here to serve us.

Surely, there are times when an unpopular determination may be perceived less than enthusiastically by a proponent and perhaps interpreted negatively. However, such is not the case in all circumstances. Too often one hears of the needless antagonism experienced by residents when dealing with some local officials. Conducting one’s affairs within the confines of one’s jurisdiction does not give license to rude or inappropriate behavior by officials when dealing with residents before them.

Certainly, one can find inspiration in the manner by which the Planning Department/Board conducts its affairs and responsibilities. Regardless of the issue or proponent before them, individuals are always treated courteously and respectfully by said department/board. There is little doubt that the same could be said for the overwhelming majority of board/committee members serving this community. To that end, reappointment in such cases is always warranted.

This however, may not always be the case. One is too familiar with examples of officials overstepping their statutory authority while addressing proponents before them. As well, one can find instances of local officials initiating antagonistic or disrespectful dialogue with those who come before them. This is unacceptable and must be addressed if we are to prosper economically and socially.

A wise and pragmatic approach would suggest it prudent to consider board appointments and reappointments carefully, ensuring that personal ideologies are not dictating one’s approach to decision making. It is critical for us to remember how privileged we are to be in service to those before us, and that even when determinations are not favorable, they must always be respectful. The litmus test for this elected official in terms of an approach to appointments/reappointments is simple - Principles before Personalities.

Sturbridge has an abundance of appointed servants who represent our town with character, honor and distinction. They conduct their affairs and fulfill their responsibilities in a manner void of political ideologies or personal agendas. Sadly, such is not the case in all instances and discussions with hundreds of residents bears witness to the less than appropriate manner with which some conduct town business.

Elected officials are subject to constant re-evaluation by the voters who then determine which elected officials are “reappointed” to office via the election process. In the case of appointed officials, voters have little direct impact in terms of evaluating the performance of these government representatives; they depend upon their elected servants – their selectmen - to fulfill that role for them. This is an obligation and a responsibility one must undertake with great diligence and reason.

There is little doubt that where opportunities or circumstances dictate, the infusion of new attitudes and new approaches generally tends to foster new ideas and thought processes. In and of itself, change often serves as a mechanism to re-energize boards/committees while simultaneously providing encouragement to prospective qualified volunteers. Historically, potential volunteers can become discouraged awaiting an appointment that seems never to materialize as a result of what many view as “appointment for life” practices. Such approaches can stifle volunteerism as citizens see little opportunity for inclusion.

We are fortunate to have a wealth of residents who have demonstrated their willingness to serve by attending our Citizen’s Leadership Academy, as well as others who have expressed strong interest in serving. If we are to successfully project the most positive, proactive, and pragmatic approach to town governance, then one might consider reappointments in a manner that is merit-based as opposed to repetition-based.