At All Costs!

Monday, December 7, 2009, the Town Administrator’s Search Committee (TASC) is expected to present the names of 3 finalists to the Board of Selectmen. These elected representatives of the people will then interview and vet those individuals, subsequently determining the next Sturbridge Town Administrator. As addressed in an earlier post, this process has not been without its share of controversy and one is unconvinced that we should presume the road ahead will be any different. Human nature is just that – human; as such, one is mindful always that the past is generally an accurate indicator of the future.

In the five months following the appointment of the first search committee (June 15, 2009), we have witnessed an unprecedented series of interactions that by any outside source, would appear suspect at best. Were one to reflect closely and objectively upon the events accompanying this search, one would be hard-pressed to conclude to the contrary that this process has been unnecessarily marred by interference and ethical miscues.

Consider the following synopsis of what we’ve witnessed in the last 5 months.

Monday, June 15, 2009: The initial TASC is appointed. Selectwoman Mary Blanchard participates in the appointment process despite advance knowledge that her husband would be applying. Unfortunately, I remained silent relative to her participation hoping it would be of no consequence. This was a clear error in judgment on my behalf. In hindsight, one might well argue that Mrs. Blanchard’s involvement constitutes (appropriately or otherwise) tampering. Were this a jury selection process, there is little doubt that such would be subject to challenge in our legal system.

Thursday, June 26, 2009: The Search Committee meets and establishes its criteria followed by a local and national posting of same.

Thursday, July 2, 2009: Several individuals contact me expressing relative to efforts aimed at modifying the previously posted criteria. Some contend it is an attempt to increase the odds of a local candidate who does not meet the job posting. I am asked to attend the meeting. I notified a reporter from the Town Common of same and he attended the meeting as well. After lengthy discussion the committee voted in the majority to maintain the previously established and posted criteria.

Monday, July 13, 2009: Charles Blanchard submits his application electronically, though his application is inconsistent with the established criteria.

Saturday, August 29, 2009: TASC meets in Executive Session. After that meeting the two previously scheduled TASC meetings of September 1 & 2 are cancelled. Undoubtedly, the TASC had completed its search and had determined the 3 finalists for presentation to the Board of Selectmen. At this very juncture the finalist’s names became a matter of public record under the the MA Open Meeting Law, (right sidebar) Exemption 8 (pages 22-24), as enforced and intrepreted by the Attorney General's office and is thus public property.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009: SEN reports (based upon statements from TASC committee members) that the names of the finalists will be released on September 7, 2009.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009: TASC Chairman Hillman electronically notifies the 3 finalists of their selection.

Sunday, September 6, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette story citing unnamed sources (from within the TASC) identifies local candidate Charles Blanchard as a finalist.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009: During a joint meeting of BOS & TASC, questions surface about the modification of previously established and posted criteria, which occurred without any public notification. In response to the concerns raised, four committee members resign. (Visitors to this site have had access to the audio portion of that meeting since September 9, as it accompanied an article titled "Audio of BOS-T.A. Search Committee Below (When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property - Thomas Jefferson)".

Thursday, September 24, 2009: A second TASC is appointed. Based upon Conflict of Interest guidelines and Town Counsel recommendation (the later provided by interim Town Administrator Mike Racicot) Mrs. Blanchard is asked to leave the room. She is understandably upset and challenges the opinion, but complies ultimately, after considerable discussion and a personal request from vice-Chairman Garieri. The Massachusetts Conflict of Interest guidelines (right side bar) clearly state that "... the wisest course of action is to leave the room...".

The following is an excerpt from same (page 1, 2nd paragraph): I. RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR ACTIONS A. Self-Dealing (Section 19) (right sidebar). The law generally prohibits you from taking any official action on matters affecting your own financial interests, or the financial interests of: your immediate family members (i.e., your spouse and the parents, siblings and children of either you or your spouse); partners; your employer(s) other than your town; anyone with whom you are negotiating or have an arrangement concerning prospective employment; or organizations for which you serve as an officer, director, partner, employee or trustee. As a Selectman, you may not act in any way that affects these interests, positively or negatively, nor may you act on any matter that affects these interests within the foreseeable future. If a matter affecting one of these interests comes up for consideration at a Selectmen’s meeting, the wisest course of action is to leave the room during discussion, deliberation and the vote on the matter, and make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflect your recusal.

Friday, September 25, 2009: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Blanchard (during separate visits) confront Selectman Scott Garieri in his place of business relative to the events of the previous evening and the overall process. These visits are highly inappropriate and certainly suspect by any candidate and/or spouse of same (particularly a spouse who maintains a seat on the Sturbridge Board of Selectmen).

Saturday, September 26, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard approaches and confronts the wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer challenging her support for his candidacy to the T.A. position. (This is inappropriate and in my view outrageous as Mrs. Creamer maintains no public profile, serves on no committees in town, and maintains absolute privacy relative to public matters.)

Tuesday, October 13, 2009: During a joint meeting between the newly appointed TASC and the B.O.S, all present are cautioned by me relative to the need to refrain from any activities that would cast a shadow on the search process. I indicate that 2 members of the BOS have already been approached, either directly or indirectly, by a candidate and his spouse, again warning all to guard against any actions that could taint the process.

Thursday, October 29, 2009: During a review of the TASC minutes, it is determined that Selectmen Scott Garieri conducted a "courtesy call" to Mr. Charles Blanchard regarding the resubmission of his application. No such call was authorized or sanctioned by the TASC. As well, this "courtesy" was not provided to other finalists. In his defense, Mr. Garieri argues that another (non-local) finalist had already submitted an application, thereby requiring no "courtesy call". One has to wonder why a local candidate whose wife serves on the B.O.S. required a special “courtesy call” to submit what a non-resident finalist was able to do without any “courtesies” extended.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009: The Telegram & Gazette emails the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) seeking clarification on the potential conflict of interest involving Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard. This email became part of a public document forwarded to the B.O.S. on 11-13-09 by Mr. Charles Blanchard, thus establishing it as a public record.

Thursday, November 5, 2009: The previously referenced email is then forwarded by Ms. Michelle Frisby of the ICMA to Mr. Blanchard following a “courtesy call” she made to him about the T&G email request. Ms. Frisby fails to respond to the T&G request but instead takes the time to contact Mr. Blanchard, wishing him “good luck” with the process. For the record, Ms. Frisby is a family friend of the Blanchard's. (This determination is made based upon the email, which became a publid record on 11-13-09.)

The Telegram and Gazette subsequently reports (11-15-09) that Martha Prego, (Ms. Frisby's superior) did respond to a direct phone solicitation from the T&G wherein she emphatically states that a clear conflict of interest regarding the Blanchard’s exists.

Friday, November 13, 2009: Mr. Charles Blanchard submits a public letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting a “full investigation” into what he terms a “very serious violation of his rights”. Mr. Blanchard further suggests something amiss insofar as his previous selection as one of the 3 finalists juxtaposed against his failure to be selected into the final 10 of the most recent search.

Sunday, November 15, 2009: A Telegram & Gazette news story reports that “Martha Perego, director of ethics at the International City/County Management Association in Washington, D.C., said there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.

The story further reports that “The average person on the street would say you can’t be independent when you’re thinking about somebody, you’re voting on the compensation, the continued employment, etc., of someone you’re related to,” Ms. Perego said Friday night from her home in Arlington, Va. “And beyond that, it’s the whole bias issue, because this person is on a board with people that she works with day in and day out. Just because she recuses herself doesn’t mean she doesn’t influence the outcome of the decision-making process.”

Monday, November 16, 2009: Chairman Mary Blanchard (wife of candidate Charles Blanchard) chairs a meeting wherein both Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard suggest foul play relative to Mr. Blanchard’s candidacy. Mrs. Blanchard attempts on several occasions to direct the conversation in a manner most conducive to Mr. Blanchard’s charges. This is, in my view, a clear manipulation of her position on the Board of Selectmen as well as a violation of the public trust. Mrs. Blanchard demonstrated her inability to maintain an objective discussion involving her husband (understandably so) and thus should have immediately recused herself. This was a clear example of the impracticality of her and her husband’s solicitation for the Town Administrator’s position. It certainly supports Ms. Perego’s position that there is “clearly a conflict of interest” between an elected official serving on a board and their spouse working for that board.

In considering this timeline, one is struck by the frequent questionable interdictions into this process by a local candidate and his spouse. Alternately, one is unable to document a single instance of “interference” by any of the other 49 initial candidates, nor the nearly 60 candidates associated with the second search process. Considering the significance of the Town Administrator’s position and the need for ensuring exceptional integrity and character on the part of the office holder, one becomes hard-pressed to now quantify this local candidate as a formidable option.

Noteworthy as well, with exceptions, press reports of the events surrounding this 5 month process – excepting those of a non-local based news outlet – have been all too frequently incomplete, inquiry deficient, and at times inaccurate. Consider the following:

The Town Common’s story relative to the November 16, 2009 selectmen’s meeting, reported that “Selectman Creamer ignored the Chairman's authority to direct the conversation" in response to Mrs. Blanchard’s attempts to control the discussion as it related to charges leveled by her husband in terms of his candidacy being “compromised”. Clearly, an astute observation, as I did ignore the Chairman's attempts to direct and manipulate the conversation in a manner more conducive to her husband’s liking. The role of the Chair is to maintain a neutral and objective discussion, not to, as some might suggest (including this weekly "newspaper"), direct the conversation in a manner more suitable to the personal proclivities of the Chair. Were the chairperson allowed to manipulate and direct all conversation, there would be few, if any discussions of merit, as the Chairman’s point of view would always dictate the final determination.

Most recently, during it’s pre-Thanksgiving release, this same newspaper reported that "According to [Selectman] Garieri, “he [Thomas Creamer] considered it [Charles Blanchard’s application] public information and said he would release it to the press. That’s a fact.” The statement allegedly was made at the Sept. 6 selectmen’s meeting. A meeting where Garieri said, “the town camera for some reason got shut off.” The Town Common story went on to say that "Furthermore, Creamer always records the meetings himself. But somehow, that camera was unplugged”.

To be clear the meeting in question actually took place on September 8, 2009 and visitors to this site know full well that the audio tape of that meeting has been hosted here since September 9, 2009. As well, the video of same was hosted on the Town’s Public Access Channel the days following the meeting. Clearly, a review of the tape by this weekly "newspaper" would have disproved Mr Garieri’s ascertains as well as his claims that the meeting was not video or audio taped. There appears to have been no attempt by this weekly "newspaper" to validate the accuracy or lack thereof relative to these unfounded misrepresentations, nor any attempt to access the Town’s video or my audio for that matter.

Equally, it appears that there were no attempts to verify the identity of at least one individual (the selectmen's representative to the TASC), in terms of his responsibly for “leaking” Mr. Blanchard’s name as a finalist to the press. Oddly, during the November 16 meeting while this same selectman/committee member was feigning righteous indignation about leaks, he was remind of his culpability for the leaks of information and his unsolicited correspondence to me regarding same. Mr. Garieri's response was that he had “never told anyone, anything”. When then asked if he would like the correspondence produced, he responded by saying that ‘if I [Scott Garieri] emailed anything to you then it was private”. One either did or did not leak information. Clearly he did.

Our local weekly “newspaper’s" response has been to simply ignore these inconsistencies as well as the unrelenting interference into this process by one candidate and his spouse, choosing instead to refrain from any true investigative vetting relative to this situation; or so at least, it appears.

These failures to vet information, investigate more deeply, and/or substantiate statements of alleged “fact” are no doubt disconcerting as the vast majority of residents obtain their information from printed media. To that end, a more comprehensive approach might have been expected and certainly would have better served the residents of Sturbridge.

The very reason that news blogging has become such an integral component of our public information system (particularly at the state and national level) is in large part due to the failure of all too many "news" outlets to fully vet and fully investigate the news. Many of the most significant news stories to break over the last 2 - 3 years have been as a direct result of bloggers. Would not all residents be better served by a more robust and comprehensive approach to reporting the news? It seems however that some have a proclivity to chase windmills rather than actually engaging dragons.

Beyond the missed opportunites by some local press representatives relative to the search for a new Town Adminstrator, the "at all costs" pursuit of the position by a local candidate - arguably spawned by an overwhelming sense of entitlement - has resulted in significant collateral damage that has shaken the faith of all too many in their elected officials. It is in our best interests always to remain wary of pursuits so vehemently undertaken on behalf of any ONE at the cost of the MANY.

The individual aspirations of the one, when balanced against the best interests of the many, should remain, at all times subordinate. To that end, the primary objective of the town’s senior appointed official is to endeavor always to serve the greater good. The path taken by at least one candidate apppears to be at odds with this obligation.

Thomas Jefferson once said that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. One has to question the cost to our community as a result of the self-indulgent political aspirations of "the few or the one". Surely an argument could be made that the price paid by our community, appears to be significantly in excess of the product’s ultimate value.

I have little doubt that there will be additional costs prior to the completion of this process.