Due Diligence

This past Monday (December 14, 2009) the Board of Selectmen had the opportunity to interview the three finalists for the Sturbridge Town Administrator’s position. The three candidates offered diverse backgrounds along with a wide range of experiences and skill sets. There is little doubt that all are capable and possess the necessary tools to administrate on behalf of the town. It is hoped that by our next meeting a final determination will be made so that our community can move forward. There is little doubt that such would be of significant value to the residents of Sturbridge.

To that end, each member of the Board of Selectmen will have invested a great deal of time and effort in properly vetting the information they have amassed in relation to each of the candidates. It is certainly hoped, that concerned residents will have done the same as this process is as much yours as it is ours; we do in fact report directly to you.

In researching each candidate, it is wise to bear in mind that Google, Bing, and other type search engine “intelligence” gathering is an extremely limited approach that lacks the comprehensive tools necessary to make truly informed decisions of this magnitude. The information is often disassociated, disconnected, and often too dissected to be meaningful until juxtaposed against hard data. That “hard data” is not amassed without extensive and detailed research that would include federal, state, or municipal records, legal briefs and/or determinations, broad review of years and years of meeting minutes, coupled with intense review of multiple source news reports from a wide range of reputable organizations. As well, it would involve detailed information cross-referencing and multi-layered fact-checking to properly vet all data, supportive or otherwise.

An appropriate vetting of candidates, if done with the hopes of achieving the best results, must not be undertaken in a vacuum, nor should it be burdened with pre-determined prejudices or proclivities. It certainly cannot be accomplished unless so conducted in the most self-less manner. And therein of course is the great challenge; one that each of us must be amenable to addressing. At all times we must recognize that the information we gather, is only as good as the detailed scrutiny it can withstand.

Over the last few days, members of the Board of Selectmen have been “provided” information on candidate(s) that is clearly designed to bias the process against a particular candidate or candidates. Some of this information is “attributable” (for lack of a better term) to “specific” sources, while other information has been received from an “anonymous” individual or individuals. This information, though of significance to those providing it, fails to garner the level of merit some might prefer, as it appears to be grounded in less than admirable inspirations. Additionally, when subjected to the level of dispassionate scrutiny a process such as this merits, the information fails to convene its intended purpose; that of derailing the opportunity for serious consideration of at least one or more candidates.

As each of you in the community monitors this process and perhaps become apprised of “compromising information” relative to any of the candidates, bear in mind, that even the most reliable of individuals, may unknowingly be providing the most unreliable of information. This due, not to any misgivings or failures on their part, but rather, due to the failures or misgivings of those providing this so called valued information. Who among us, is without something in our past that could be misrepresented intentionally or otherwise by those who may not have the most objective of intentions?

As well, there are those among us who share the noblest of intentions, yet unwittingly fall victim to information not thoroughly or properly vetted. Each of us, citizen and selectman alike, must be ever vigilant in our deliberative process, guarding always against data-deficient determinations that lack the appropriate Due Diligence. Equally so, all of us must be ever vigilant against prejudgments motivated by personal proclivities, consciously or otherwise.