The Sanctity of Our Town Charter

This past Monday, the INTERIM Town Administrator along with the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, constructed (what in my view was) an ill-advised attempt to usurp the sanctity of the Sturbridge Town Charter. Citing an incomplete and poorly developed opinion from Town Counsel, (which by the way was heavily weighted in favor of increasing the Town Administrator's authority), the BOS Chairman and the Interim Town Administrator sought to wrestle control of Board of Health personnel.

This, in my view, is no inconsequential matter, as the Sturbridge Town Charter is for all intents and purposes, the very Constitution of our community. It is a document that not unlike the U.S. Constitution, defines the very manner by which we govern as well as the authority and jurisdiction of those we choose govern us. As such, it is the will of Sturbridge residents and like the U.S. Constitution, can only be modified or amended through a carefully executed and deliberate process undertaken and approved by those whose will it represents, the residents of Sturbridge.

Specifically, our Interim Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Chairman sought the authority and the approval of the Board of Selectmen to enter into Executive Session to hear allegations leveled against the Board of Health Agent. In so doing, they would have had the B.O.S. vote in the affirmative to enter into a hearing regarding an employee over whom neither the selectmen nor the Town Administrator have any jurisdiction, just as we have no authority over the School Committee, the Town Clerk, or the Town Moderator. By virtue of the Town Charter these entities are all sovereign in that they report directly to the voters of Sturbridge. Additionally, they have powers granted under the Charter to appoint and/or hire personnel. Such is the case with the Board of Health Agent, who is in fact appointed by the Board of Health.

To be clear, there may in fact be issues requiring attention as it relates to Board of Health personnel and if so, they should undoubtedly be addressed. So too, there may be issues requiring attention in any and every other department, board, committee, etc. that serves and/or governs our community. With that said, there is also a clear line of jurisdiction and authority in place with which to appropriately address issues should they arise. Were we to allow ourselves to overstep our authority or jurisdiction in one area, what then would prevent us from choosing a similar path in the future? Would we at some point attempt an interdiction into the affairs of the School Committee or the Town Clerk? At what point then, would our Town Charter cease to have any relevance?

During Monday’s selectmen’s meeting we were presented with an agenda item wherein we were asked to consider an Executive Session request from the Town Administrator and the B.O.S. Board Chairman concerning an employee over whom we have no direct jurisdiction. To that end, the Town Administrator provided an opinion from Town Counsel, which suggests – based upon their interpretation of the Charter – that the Health Agent falls under the jurisdiction of the Town Administrator as opposed to the Board of Health.

Town Counsel’s opinion is clearly at odds with the twenty plus year past practice within the Town of Sturbridge and certainly fails (in my humble opinion) to be consistent with my reading of the Town Charter as well as Massachusetts General Laws. So too, it is inconsistent with several legal interpretations provided to both the Board of Health and the Board of Selectmen.

In reviewing Section 5-3 of the Town Charter, there is nothing of consequence that one is able to identify that clearly or otherwise defines the Health Agent as an employee under the supervision and/or direct administration of the Town Administrator. Section 6.1 of the Town Charter clearly lists the personnel, boards, commissions, and committees directly responsible and accountable to the Town Administrator and conspicuous by its absence is that of the Board of Health and thus its agent.

In fact, Section 4-8 of the Town Charter clearly identifies the Board of Health as a sovereign entity accountable to the voters of Sturbridge, not the Town Administrator. To that end, MA General Law Chapter 111, Section 30, specifically states that “Boards of health may appoint agents or directors of public health to act for them in cases of emergency or if they cannot conveniently assemble, and any such agent or director shall have all the authority which the board appointing him had; but he shall in each case within two days report his action to the board for its approval, and shall be directly responsible to it and under its direction and control. An agent or director of public health appointed to make sanitary inspections may make complaint of violations of any law, ordinance or by-law relative to the public health”.

Section 6-2 of the Sturbridge Town Charter states that “The Town Administrator shall have the power to appoint such other individual town officers and members of boards and commissions as are authorized by the General Laws, this charter, or bylaws, and for whom appointment is not otherwise provided”. Clearly, as it references appointments “…as authorized by the General Laws…whom appointment is not otherwise provided”, I am unconvinced that the Town Administrator retains any supervisory jurisdiction over the Health Agent, since that appointment falls under MGL Chapter 111, Section 30.

Considering the contradictions between the Town Charter, which I view as direct reflection of the people’s will, and the opinion offered by Town Counsel, which I view as biasly weighted in favor of the Town Administrator, I could not and will not allow myself to support any action which is fundamentally in opposition to the Charter. Legal activism, is in my view, an inappropriate venue for Charter change, Town meeting is. If concerns or issues exist relative to the Board of Health or its personnel, then the appropriate course of action is to convey said concerns to the BOH, not to engage in activism inconsistent with the Charter.

Oddly, an argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman in support of this misguided attempt to "consolidate power" within the Town Administrator's office, was her ascertain that the Board of Health, as a part-time board, was unable to appropriately supervise its personnel. Is not the Board of Selectmen a part-time board charged with supervising the Town Administrator and by extension all departments under our jurisdiction? One fails to find sufficient logic or intellectual consistency in the argument offered by the B.O.S. Chairman.

As a living document, the Town Charter is specifically vague in some areas, and specifically pointed in others. Where employment and appointments are concerned, I believe the Town Charter is not as ambiguous as some might like to suggest. It is my firm belief that a conservative approach should always be taken by public officials as it relates to the Town Charter and that wherever doubt exists, we should always err on the side of caution and not read things into the Charter we would like to see, but rather, read that which is actually written. To the extent that the Town Charter appropriately establishes separation of powers and represents the manifest will of the people, one should always defer to the collective intent of those who authorized it - the residents of Sturbridge - not the intent of individuals. To that end, I will not support any attempt to alter the Sturbridge Town Charter, short of Town Meeting.

Post Note: Is it not interesting, that the very same week we celebrate the birth of the United States Marine Corps (10 November 1775), and the very same week that we honor those men and women in uniform who have sworn "...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic", we find ourselves witness to an attempt to circumvent our own Town Charter?