Unintentional or Otherwise

Recent events are no doubt straining the patience of our community. The once seemingly simple search for a new Town Administrator has been anything but. Sadly, with so many significant issues necessitating our attention – decreasing tax revenues, declining economic tax base, infrastructure inadequacies on Route 15, shortages in our road management fund, sub-standard public-access telecommunications, increased recycling center/landfill costs, etc., as well as the many significant infrastructure projects currently scheduled, we are instead exhausting much too much effort trying to keeping an honest system, honest. Certainly, I am no a bystander to this debacle, but rather, an all too unwilling participant.

From the very beginning I had hoped that this process would be conducted as openly and event-free as possible, while protecting the confidentiality of candidates as governed by MA General Law. I did not anticipate what has amounted to influence pedaling (unintentional or otherwise), nor had I anticipated the challenges this community would unnecessarily face. Naïve perhaps, but nonetheless I believed this would be an entirely open and positive experience. Such, has not been the case.

As previously written, I believe that the responsibility for this unnecessary situation has, and continues to rest on the shoulders of two individuals, one an applicant, the other his wife. Intentionally or not, their actions have unnecessarily compromised the process. For the most part, the members of the two Town Administrator's Search Committees (TASC) have done a yeoman’s job. There have been some missteps, due mainly perhaps to inexperience and as well, I believe, some due to pressure, whether real or imagined from at least this same applicant and his spouse.

In what would surely be labeled “tampering” were this a case pending before a jury, an applicant and his wife, unintentionally or otherwise, have exerted influence on this process by inserting themselves into situations they should have avoided altogether. After the first search committee had established its minimum criteria, I became aware that there had been conversations with members of the TASC in an attempt to modify their pre-established and already posted criteria. Concerned individuals approached me with fears that the proposed criteria modifications may be an attempt to enhance the chances of a local applicant who did not meet the minimum criteria. True or not, this perception had already begun to manifest and I was asked by several individuals to attend the second meeting of the previous TASC in hopes of ascertaining the motivation behind this reconsideration of previously agreed upon and posted criteria.

After an exhaustive discussion relative to the minimum criteria, the majority of TASC members voted to maintain the qualifications as previously determined and posted. Yet, some six weeks later, when these same individuals came before the Board of Selectmen to discuss the finalists, it was learned that they had departed from their own previously established and nationally posted criteria with no public notification. This was disconcerting, as the newly determined and previously unannounced qualifications had not been made available to others who might have then opted to apply for the Town Administrator’s position. The appearance – real or perceived – was that a hometown candidate was garnering an advantage in the process. To be clear, I am not suggesting such is the case, I am emphatically stating that the perception was rife throughout our community. In the world of politics and business, perception is reality, regardless of the truth.

During this meeting joint meeting of the former TASC and the Board of Selectmen (B.O.S.) several questions were raised relative to the dramatic departure from the previously established criteria. Oddly, these direct and appropriate questions ultimately resulted in the unsolicited resignation of four members of that committee. In hindsight, we (the Board of Selectmen) should then have requested the resignation of the fifth TASC member (B.O.S. vice-Chairman Garieri) in order facilitate a completely fresh approach. I take full responsibility for not suggesting such, as I knew internally that it would have been the most appropriate course. I allowed my judgement to be clouded by my personal relationship with the vice-Chairman. That was an inexcusable lapse in sound reasoning on my part.

The formation of a new committee would certainly not be without its share of controversy either. During the Selectmen’s meeting of 09/24/09 wherein the appointment of a new TASC was to be discussed, the B.O.S. Chairwoman (based upon MA State Ethics Laws) was asked to leave the room during the appointment of a new committee. She had recused herself from participation, presumably because her husband either had, or intended to, resubmit an application. The MA State Ethics Commission in its law summary on Self Dealing, Section 1, Restrictions on Your Actions, states the following: “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)…”. It goes on to say that: “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”. The Chairwoman was understandably upset with being asked to comply with this law summary as this course action (based upon her ascertain) had not previously been invoked by Board members. Regardless of what may have not occurred prior to my election to the Board, it is nonetheless the appropriate and best course of action to leave the room. This prevents any reticence on the part of Board members to openly discuss issues.

The following day (09-25-09) it was volunteered that Selectman and TASC member Scott Garieri had been approached by the Chairwoman, in direct relation to the Town Administrator’s search process. Approximately 90 minutes later, I witnessed former candidate Charles Blanchard approach Mr. Garieri and seek a personal audience with him. It was subsequently volunteered that the conversations were directly related to the previous night’s meeting as well as the search process.

Undoubtedly, the limited context of those conversations as addressed here, constitute nothing more than second hand information - i.e. hearsay, in that they reflect what was conveyed to me by Mr. Garieri, not what I actually heard transpire between the principals. To that end, they are subject to all manner of scrutiny. The only three individuals who can attest to the true nature of those conversations are those directly involved. Surely, their honest and uncensored clarifications are welcomed.

This interaction was followed by yet another questionable contact on the part of Mr. Charles Blanchard on 09/26/09 while Mrs. Jeannine Creamer (wife of Selectman Thomas R. Creamer) was assisting a friend with a craft booth on the Town Common. Mr. Blanchard approached, confronted, and challenged Mrs. Creamer’s support for his “candidacy” to the Town Administrator’s position. This was not the result of any general conversation they had engaged, but rather a singularly direct challenge specifically and solely directed at her and her support for him as Town Administrator.

In and of itself, this is most troubling, particularly in light of Mrs. Creamer’s non-existent public profile as it relates to town politics. Mrs. Creamer does not serve on any committees in town, takes no public positions on issues, nor does she publicly promote or challenge positions or issues. Thus, for all purposes, she maintains no political role or profile within the community that would in any way suggest it appropriate for this former candidate to challenge her relative to this issue. One might be tempted to view Mr. Blanchard’s action as an indirect attempt to influence my decision making.

Subsequent to these interactions it was later learned through a review of the TASC meeting minutes of 10/28/09, that the vice-Chair of the Board of Selectmen had personally phoned Mr. Blanchard regarding his necessity to resubmit his application for re-consideration. This contact was neither directed, nor had it been sanctioned by the other members of the TASC. Considering the issues that had already clouded this process, as well as the compromised level of public trust accompanying it, one becomes concerned with what could be argued has the appearance of a serious breach of protocol and good judgment.

Clearly, one recognizes - based solely upon this commitment made to the previous finalists by former TASC members - the apparent quandary, which may have manifested in this committee member's mind; to that end, I am obliged to believe that his intentions were pure. Equally so however, one recognizes – based upon the minutes – that none of the other 3 finalists were provided the same “courtesy” relative to their applications or this process.

Thus, one is forced to wonder why a former finalist, who resides locally, complimented by a family member holding public office who retains full knowledge of the application process, required a “courtesy call” regarding resubmission, while others did not. The minutes clearly reflect that this same “courtesy” was not extended to other finalists who neither reside locally, nor have any direct relations with local public officials. More to the point, the minutes emphatically demonstrate that one non-resident finalist resubmitted her/his application without any prompting whatsoever. One is struck by the contradiction in approach relative to these former finalists. Would it not have been reasonably fair to expect that a former resident finalist would have been as equally well schooled relative to the application process as any non-resident applicant and/or former finalist?

Again, I do recognize that these previous “commitments” may have influenced the contact initiated by the B.O.S. vice-Chairman with this former and potential local candidate. As such, I believe that his intentions were pure. I do question however, whether the so-referenced “courtesy call” was a direct or indirect result of any conscious or unconscious pressures manifesting in response to the unsolicited contacts he had with the former candidate and his wife. If a “courtesy call” was warranted, should not such have first been vetted and approved by the full committee?

Most recently, (Friday, November 13, 2009), Mr. Blanchard submitted a letter to the Board of Selectmen wherein he raised several concerns he had with the search process. This letter had been referenced on a correspondence list that is faxed out weekly to the press by the Town Administrator's secretary. Subsequent to that fax, I received an inquiry early Friday evening from a member of the press requesting a copy of the document. I obliged, as the letter was in fact a public document the moment we had received it and therefore subject to disclosure under the public records law.

To that end, consider the following excerpts taken directly from the Massachusetts Public Records Law Handbook:

Page 1 - “Every record made or received by a government entity is presumed to be a public record, unless it is subject to an exemption...”

Page 4 – “The Massachusetts Public Records Law provides that any person has an absolute right of access to public information…”

Page 4 – “There are no strict rules that govern the manner in which requests for public information should be made. Requests may be oral or written and may be made in person or through the mail…”

Page 5 – “All requests must receive a response as soon as practicable, without unreasonable delay and always within ten days..”.

Since Mr. Blanchard’s letter was not protected by Executive Session or Confidentiality privileges, there was no reason to refrain from honoring this request for public information

In his letter, Mr. Blanchard argues that his candidacy for the Town Administrator’s position was compromised due to the release of confidential information to the press. Certainly this is a serious charge on face value, as confidential information is just that, confidential. However, confidentiality is dictated by Massachusetts General Laws not by the individual wishes or preferences of public officials. Were it left solely to the discretion of public officials to determine when and what information should be released, there is little doubt the public would be left uninformed on an all too frequent basis.

In response to Mr. Blanchard's concerns pertaining to the release of his name as a finalist, coupled with the feigned indignation of the B.O.S. vice-Chairman relative to same, I found myself with little choice but to set the record straight. It should not have been necessary for me to do so, as that duty rests with the individual responsible. Yet, it was clear that this flagrant misdirection of the truth necessitated challenge and that responsibility unfortunately feel to me.

But therein lies the great irony, as the failure of the vice-Chair to acknowledge the truth may have unnecessarily created a challenge to the perception of one's credibility. Under the Open Meeting Law, the release of the finalists names by Mr. Garieri were completely consistent with the law and in no way constituted a violation. Simply stated, there was nothing wrong in his releasing the name(s) to the press; as such, his failure to acknowledge the truth was unnecessary. He did absolutely nothing that warranted any departure from fact.

Consider these sections excerpted directly from the State’s Open Meeting Law Guidebook, pertaining to Exemption 8, relative to Executive Session discussions or materials.

“(8) To Consider and Interview Applicants for Employment by a Preliminary Screening Committee or a Subcommittee Appointed by a Governmental Body if an Open Meeting will have a Detrimental Effect in Obtaining Qualified Applicants…

This amendment applies only to municipal and district governments. It permits a hiring subcommittee of a governmental body or a preliminary screening committee to conduct the initial screening process in executive session if an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the governmental body’s ability to attract qualified applicants. The amendment does not apply to any stage in the hiring process after the screening committee or subcommittee votes to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent body.” Author's Note: It is at this point - the establishment of a final list - that the names immediately become public domain.

The Open Meeting Law guidebook then goes on to provide the following example:

"A school committee is seeking to fill an opening for the position of superintendent of schools. It has received 100 applications in response to its advertisements; some of those responding expressly stated that they wished their applications to remain confidential. M.G.L. c. 214, §1B, a statute wholly independent and separate from the Open Meeting Law, protects an individual’s right to privacy against unreasonable, substantial or serious invasion. It may constitute an unreasonable or serious invasion of these applicants’ statutory right to privacy for the school committee to identify them by name and discuss their applications in an open meeting at the initial screening stages; if so, the discussion would be required to be held in an executive session. (Note, however, that the school committee would bear the burden of proving that the statutory privacy right of the applicants warranted the executive session.) As the committee’s selection process continues and the list of applicants is narrowed, however, the privacy rights of the individuals still under consideration recede in comparison to the public’s right to know who the school committee is seriously reviewing for the post. At least by the time the school committee (or a screening subcommittee of the school committee) has selected a list of semi-finalists, if not before, it is unlikely that the rights of privacy on the part of such persons would require or authorize an executive session to discuss them…

Note: Under a ruling of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR 82-219, the names of the initial applicants for the superintendent’s position would not appear to be a public record, and would not be required to be included in the minutes of any meeting, whether open or closed, in which the applicants were discussed. However, in SPR 84-66 the Supervisor of Public Records ruled that the list of finalists’ names are public records. Although the Supervisor’s opinion addressed only the required release of finalists’ names, the reasoning of the opinion suggests that the names of semi-finalists would also be considered a public record subject to release to the public upon request.”

Considering the State’s guidelines, it is clear that there is no inherent right to privacy as it relates to release of finalists names, or for that matter, those of semi-finalists once a "...vote to recommend a candidate or candidates to its parent..." has occurred. Those names become public record the moment they are determined. To that end, the release of at least one name by individuals serving directly on the Town Administrator’s Search Committee, did not violate the Open Meeting Law; they were in fact, consistent with same.

Thus, for all protestations to the contrary, there was nothing ethically or legally wrong with the release of names to the press by the Vice-Chair of the B.O.S. His actions constituted no wrongs when contrasted against the Open Meeting Law. Some well spent time (by the vice-Chair and others) reading and comprehending the laws by which we conduct our business, could have spared a great deal of unnecessary discomfort for all.

Undoubtedly, this process has been demoralizing for many and there are those who might suggest that turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a silent voice to this issue would have been the best course of action. Considering the challenges that have already manifested with this process, one might be tempted or even convinced to take such an approach. I categorically reject such and denounce any failure to openly address these issues as a blatant breach of the public trust.

Additionally and/or alternately, there are those who might argue that a few well placed editorials or blog postings – anonymously and otherwise, should dictate the course of town affairs. I dismiss those ascertains completely and contend that the final destination of all deliberations should be determined not by external pressures or influences, but rather through objective, scrupulous, and unassailable reflection.

As an elected official, I am reminded of the oath taken by all public servants, which requires our absolute honesty, unbridled objectivity, and unwavering commitment to faithfully execute one’s duties on behalf of all Sturbridge residents; not any Few, or any One. As much of a cliché as one might reference it, that oath still matters a great deal to many Sturbridge residents. It certainly means everything to me in fulfilling the great obligation and responsibility of office I am now honored to hold on behalf of all residents. I do hope, with each passing day, that I am executing my responsibilities in a manner consistent with your expectations.

It is my sincerest hope that we can soon return our focus to where it is most productive. Clearly, no resident, nor any member of the Board of Selectmen for that matter, relishes the distractions and embarrassment this has caused for our community. Considering such, I have infrequently questioned whether it might have been best for me to turn a blind eye to what was happening and simply hope for the best. To do so however, would have been a dereliction of my responsibility to the residents of this community. Doing the right thing, does come with a significant price and I hope we have not paid too steeply for what has transpired. There is little doubt that the demands of democracy can be most challenging; were that not the case, none of this would be of any consequence.

Perhaps, as the dust settles, each of us (the members of the B.O.S.) will embark upon some extensive soul searching in the hopes of gaining deeper insights into our solemn responsibility to the residents of our community. We do afterall serve you, and each of does well to remember at all times that principle, integrity, and character are the only appropriate tools for effecting positive change. Anything grounded in self-seeking or deception is ultimately destined for failure. I certainly recognize my obligation to do so.