Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-02-15 Preliminary Report of the Committee to Review Appointment Procedures PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD OF AP- PEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSORS, TOWN COUNSEL AND TOWN COMPTROLLER 2/15/72 I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The Committee has reviewed the appointment procedures as requested by Article 11 of the Special Town Meeting held on June 14, 1971. While Article 11 specified several appointive positions to be reviewed, the Committee deemed it appropriate to examine the problem in a broader context . Consequently, we have examined carefully the procedures, the checks and balances of power in the system, and the potential problems involved. From such a study, pluses and minuses became ap- parent. Some of the more positive aspects appear to be: 1) Implicit in Article 11 was the question of whether the structure of Lexington Town Govern- ment included sufficient checks and balances of power. The Committee feels that the interaction between elective and appointive offices, while not perfect, goes provide a reasonably good system for such chec�`?s and balances. 2) Current appointors recognize the need for ( 1) objectivity among members of various Boards and Committees and (2) variety of opinion within each Board or Committee . 3) The quality and dedication of people cur- rently involved in Lexington ' s Town Government is impressive . Disinterest by townspeople in elective or appointive positions does not seem to be a problem. On the other hand, there are areas where some weak- nesses in the system appear to be correctable : 1) Because all appointments are made by only seven people (5 Selectmen, Town Moderator, Town Manager) .there is reason to believe that some highly qualified residents who would serve if asked, are not considered. This is true even though various other individuals and groups are consulted before an ap- pointment is made . 2) At the present time it is difficult, if not impossible, for an interested person to know when an appointment is going to be made. While it seems that open questioning of potential appointees may not be needed or desirable, it does appear that, when a particular appointment is to be made, it should be announced in advance arlj take place at an open meeting. 3) There is an important question concerning length of service in a particular appointive position. While background experience, either professional or in regard to Town functioning is important, considera- tion must be given to such problems as the potential build-up of inflexibility and prejudices which can accumulate over a long period of years in the same position. 4) Because the appointment procedures do not operate in such a way as to encourage or insure the reflection of a cross-section of the Town ' s popula- tion, important segments of the public point of view are not represented. II. RECOMMENDATIONS While no major changes appear necessary, the Committee recommends : 1) Groups and individuals in Lexington should be encouraged to supply names of qualified people to the various appointors (Selectmen, Moderator, Manager) . For example : The Town Meeting Members Assoc- iation should be more active in seeking out information o`n t1�e s i s ana interests of its Members, and up- datea lists should be sent to appointors at least once a year. These lists should be made available to TMMA Members and to the press at the same time they are sent to the appointors so that the names will be given close scrutiny before an appointment is made . - 2 - The League of Women Voters, the local news- papers, and other various special interest groups should be encouraged to be active in this respect also. When, as, and if, the Lexington Town Manager Act is amended, these informal procedures should be reviewed to determine whether a formal committee having I 1$ a stronger role insuggestingpotential appointees is needed. 2) The Selectmen, the Moderator, and the Town Manager should be more aware of the need for openness and publicity in making appointments . It is important that the people have the knowledge of when appointments are to be made and the opportunity to see the actual appointment take place . Thus we recommend public announcement of when, and for w at positions, appo ntments will be made and open meetings tor the actual announcemenL of the appointment - We have suggested that a booklet be prepared and made available to residents of Lexington showing how ana wnen various positions in Town Government are filled. Information such as is contained in Appenai)Z 'A, page 11 could be printed for all elective and ap- pointive positions. Again, we feel the Town Meeting Members ' Association and such groups as the League of Women Voters can help. 3) Since the Committee is not recommending any mandatory action or formal change in the appointment system, it is felt that a Warrant Article would be inappropriate . But since the Committee does feel strongly about its recommendations, it will ask for a waiving of the rules at the Annual Town Meeting on March 20, 1972 to consider a Resolution on items 1) and 2) . - 3 - We hope to get a sense of the Meeting vote on the question of availability of candidates and publicity of appointments so that the Selectmen, Moderator and Town Manager will know that it is not just the Committee that feels this way, but the Town Meeting as well. III. INTRODUCTION The Committee to Review Appointment Procedures for the Board of Appeals, Board of Assessors, Town Counsel, and Town Comptroller, was established by a motion under Article 11 of the 1971 Special Town Meeting of the Town of Lexington. See Appendix B page 12 Article 11 was a Citizens Article which was requested with a petition signed by about 250 residents. The motion was passed unanimously at 11: 36 PM on June 14, 1971. The Moderator appointed the Committee on October 14, 1971. Appendix D page 15 lists the members, their ad- dress and telephone numbers, and their occupations . The first meeting was held on November 2, 1971. IV. PURPOSE Attempts were made at the first few meetings to establish what we were trying to determine and how broad our investigation should be. The desire of Article 11 was established to be that the check and balance system in Lexington should be in- vestigated in that it might not be correctly weighted, and that there was a risk that too much power was resting with too few officials who were difficult to replace. In other words, the balancers of the system (the watch- dog individuals, Boards and Committees) might be too closely interwoven so that no one was really able to check on anyone else. - 4 - Article 11 was incomplete in that it did not include several of the balancing factors. For example, the Ap- propriation Committee, the Capital Expenditure Committee, and the Permanent Building Committee, all have watchdog functions as does the Planning Board but they were not included in our investigation area. It would be difficult to appraise the system if we had not considered them. The Committee decided that while we must concentrate on the actual appointments mentioned in Article 11, we would try to review the appointment system as a whole, particularly in regard to the "watchdog" function of various groups . It became our purpose to review the system of appoint- ments now being used in Lexington ' s Town Government and see that they were such that (1) the best possible people would most likely be appointed and retained in these ap- pointed positions, and (2) the appointive procedure was subject to enough review and checks so that one or a very few people would find it difficult to control the system to their own advantage. V. PROCEDURES Three procedures were used to try and accomplish our purpose : 1) Review of the Lexington system of appoint- ments and the checks and balances of power it includes. Reviewing the General By-Laws of the Town of Lexington and the Town Manager Act, it became apparent that the system incorporated many very sensible checks. For example, having the Moderator alone make appointments might be criticized except that he only appoints Committees that do not have to do with every- day operations (Appropriations, Capital Expenditure, etc . ) . In addition, he is elected every year for a one year term. - 5 - Another example concerns the Board of Appeals . Appointments are made by the Selectmen, however, new members have, by tradition, come from the Associate Members that are appointed for one year terms. Thus, assuming that a group of three Selectmen wanted to control the Board of Appeals - first they would have to get re-elected themselves, one each year. Second, they would have to appoint an Associate Member to the Board of Appeals each year for three years. Then after wait- ing 'for a year, they presumably could force a present Member of the Board of Appeals whose term expired, not to seek reappointment. So after five years they could control the Board of Appeals, assuming the three Members they appointed attended every meeting. It is pretty far-fetched to believe that this could be accomplished without a great many people knowing and speaking out. 2) Review of other Towns and systems to see what methods they use that might be incorporated into the Lexington system. Here the reviews varied all the way from the small surrounding Towns to various States and the Federal Government. . was fairly quickly evident that most techniques were too complicated or extensive to be use- 8/14d/ ful here . Several towns do have a formal committee Eo suggest names to the appointers and 1-hic was reviewed quite extensively. It was also apparent that no matter how many checks and balances of power are instituted, the integ- rity of the appointors is vital and there is no particular relationship between complicated systems and good ap- pointments . As a matter of fact, it appeared that complications begat more complications . For example, the extensive review system involved in the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge has certainly discouraged many highly qualified people from accepting a nomination. 3) Interview the Appointors and Appointees in Lexington to see how the system does work in practice and what the local problems or risks actually are . - 6 - Most of the Committee ' s time was spent talking with Members of the Board of Appeals, Board of Assessors, and Board of Selectmen and to the Town Counsel, Town Comptroller and Moderator. These interviews usually lasted several hours and the subjects ranged widely over the whole area of procedures and appointments . In addition, Members of other groups and Com- mittees were contacted to see if they had anything to ask or contribute . VI. FINDINGS 1) Qualifications of Appointees One of the most apparent problems in requirements for appointment was the difference between technical know- ledge of an area (Town Counsel, Town Comptroller) versus the broad knowledge of the Town of Lexington (Board of Ap- peals) . Another difference was between an appointment the appointor had to work with every day (Town Counsel appointed by Selectmen) versus an appointment quite remote from every day operations (Board of Assessors appointed by Selectmen) . Finally, there was the difference between providing a point- of-view (a conservative or liberal voice on the Appropriations Committee) versus appointments for specific knowledge of a subject (knowledge of real estate on Board of Assessors) . The appointors generally were very knowledgeable about why they chose certain people for certain positions (Board of Appeals - long experience in the affairs of Lexington and obiect:ivity. Board of Assessors - experience in appraising real estate) . They also were fairly consistent in their claim to try and appoint qualified-experienced- objective people . The appointees in several instances could not remember or did not know why or how they got appointed. They were willing to talk about the qualifications that they thought were necessary for serving and some were con- sulted and made suggestions on new appointments (Chairman of Board of Appeals and Board of Assessors) . - 7 - Generally, we found them dedicated, fairly ob- jective and adament that the system as it was did an excellent job and should not be changed. Their knowledge of who was available for appointment and who might do an excellent job was generally limited to those they knew well or with whom they had worked. The people we spoke with had combined experience in the operations of Lexington that was impressive but their awareness of how their decisions had changed, if at all, over a period of time as Lexington changed, was limited. 2) Re-appointment Procedures This was one area where there was disagreement among the people interviewed by the Committee and_within the Committee itself. An attitude that, "If the person does an adequate job and appears to be capable of continuing in the appointment he is reappointed" , prevailed among the appointors . Relatively little comparison was done at the time of re-appointment to see how the incumbent compared with available "new" candidates. The attitude differed in regard to re-appointment depending on the Board or Committee involved. In some positions the length of time served did not seem to matter to the appointor or appointee (Board of Appeals) , whereas in others it did (Appropriation Committee) . Finally the appointees without fail felt that length of service had nothing to do with ability to serve and nothing to do with ability to continue to perform. Most felt that since background knowledge and experience were o important, the Years of doing...the sam_e...1ob were helpful and rarely harmful. Most appointees also felt that since the positions were filled without pay (not true of Counsel & Comptroller) or with small pay, that attrition would take care of the problem of longevity. - 8 - Practically no instances were shown where re- appointment was not made when the appointee wanted to be appointed again. The cases that were shown were quite obvious and represented extreme circumstances. 3) Objectivity Both appointees and appointors indicated great reliance on objectivity. However, many when requested to suggest names, had a preference for someone they had worked with before, and knew well. 4) Methods Used in Making Appointments. The procedures for making appointments were quite informal and varied only to the extent of consulting with other active people in Lexington. Generally speaking the procedure was: (1) Indicate to the Chairman of the Committee or Board that appointments were necessary. (2) Consult with other active elected or ap- pointed people . (3) Consult with local groups such as TMMA, L.W.V. , Conservation Group, Historical Society, etc . (4) Consult with others who would know the people in -Town with qualifications necessary for the ap- pointive position. (5) Construct a list of potential candidates . (6) Narrow the list down by gradual elimination of names either through further consultation or direct interview. (7) Interview those remaining candidates not al- ready well known to appointor. (8) Determine which of the remaining candidates would be willing to serve if asked. Usually through - 9 - knowledge of a person or by specific request of the person or group suggesting the name . (9) Consider the needs of the Committee or Board as to "point of view" , objectivity, technical knowledge, etc . (10) Ask appointee to accept appointment. To what degree any of the above steps were followed depended on the availability of potential candidates, and the importance of the appointment. After an appointee had accepted, the appointment was announced in various ways . Usually the Selectmen ' s ap- pointments were announced in their agenda for a regular meeting and the appointment was announced at the meeting. Other appointments were announced through the local news- paper and on the bulletin board at the Town Offices. In it respects the publicity as to when an appointment would be made and who was actually appointed was very limited. VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Committee wishes to thank all of the people who so willingly gave of their time to help us understand the appointive procedures in Lexington. Particular thanks go to the appointors (Chairman of Selectmen, Moderator and Town Manager) and the appointees (Chairman of Board of Ap- peals, Chairman of Board of Assessors, Town Counsel and Town Comptroller) . Without their cooperation our job would have been extremely difficult and our understanding much more limited. Respectfully submitted, - 10 - APPENDIX A APPOINTMENT INFORJATION APPOINTMENT APPOINTOR Term Approx. Method of of Date of Attaining Position # Members Appointment Appointment Position # Involved Position Staggered- Board of 5 Members 5 year terms April Selectmen 5 geretde3d yeartains Appeals S Associate 1 year terms April Selectmen 5 Elected for sta Members gered 3 yeart�r Board of 3 Members Staggered Town Manager 1 Appointed by Assessors 3 year terms April Selectmen for 1 year Town 1 Person 1 year term April Selectmen 5 Elected for stag- Comptroller gered 3 year terms Town 1 Person 1 year term April Selectmen 5 Elected for stag- Counsel gered 3 year term - 11 - APPENDIX B ARTICLE CREATING COMMITTEE ARTICLE 11 AS PASSED AT THE SPECIAL TOWN MEETING HELD ON JUNE 14, 1971 Article 11. Presented by Weiant Wathen-Dunn. MOTION; That the subject matter of Article 11 be referred for study to a committee consisting of nine (9) members to be appointed by the Moderator, of whom at least three (3) shall be registered voters in the Town who are neither employed by the Town nor holders of any Town office, either elective or ap- pointive; said committee to report its conclusions and recommendations to a subsequent Town Meeting not later than the 1972 Annual Town Meeting. 11:33 PM (Article 11 as it appears in the warrant for the Special Town Meeting of June 14, 1971: ARTICLE 11. To see whether the Town will instruct the Selectmen to petition the General Court for the enactment of legislation, to take effect on the last day of June immediately following its enactment, amending section 2 of chapter 753 of the Acts of 1968 by adding at the end of the said section 2 the fol- lowing: (i) Appointments of members of the board of appeals, board of assessors, town comptroller, and town counsel shall be effective only after approval by the town meeting, or by a committee of town meeting members established by the town meeting for the pur- pose of reviewing such appointments. Any vote of the town meeting establishing such a committee shall provide a method for selecting its members from time to time, and shall authorize and direct such committee to meet as required in order to carry out its duties expeditious- ly. Any such vote may further define the manner in which such committee shall be constituted and shall carry out its duties.) Motion, as presented by Weiant Wathen-Dunn declared carried unanimously. 11: 36 PM - 12 - APPENDIX C PUBLICITY OF COMMITTEE 1) Appointment of Committee was announced by Moderator through local newspaper on October 14, 1971. 2) The Committee requested public participation through the local newspaper on December 30, 1971. A copy of the article is attached. 3) All Committee meetings were held in the Town Offices in either Room 111 or Room G15 . A copy of a typical notice which was posted in the Town Office at least twenty- four hours in advance of the meeting, is attached. All ten of the Committee ' s meetings were open to the public. - 13 - APPENDIX C - Attachment 1 Committee Solicits Opinions of Townspeople • On Appointment Process Under Article 11 of the Warrant have included all town boards. for the June 14 Special Town rather than just those specifically Meeting. a committee has been mentioned in the committee s named to review and study the ap- charge in an attempt to attain the pointment procedure of the Board broadest views possible Now of Appeals,the Board of Assessors, private citizens and organizations Town Comptroller and Town are invited to make their views, Counsel. concerns,and experiences,regard- One purpose of the committee is ing the appointment of town of fi- to determine the feasibility and rials. known to the committee. desirability of introducing formal Those wishing to do so are urged to or informal checks and balances to contact Chairman Frank T Par appointive offices. rather than the rish. 5 Juniper pl or Arthur Bur indirect one implied in the election rell Mary Louise Burri. Patricia of the Board of Selectmen and Hagedorn. John Harvell, George moderator McCormack Stephen Politi. Sam The committee has been meeting Silverman. or eiant Nathen- weekly since November 2 and to Dunn. date has talked with moderator and The next meeting of the commit former Selectmen Chairman Lin- tee which is open to the public coin P Cole Jr Board of Appeals will be held on December 29 at 7 30 Chairman Donald Nickerson.Corn- p m in Room 111 of the Town Of. ptroller Richard Perry and Town fire Building Counsel Donald Legro. Discussions APPENDIX C - Attachment 2 NOTICE of MEETING Committee to T\u-:o;'it , infers of Boards, Comptroller and To-n Counr,e1 The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Saturday, February 26, 1972 at 2 00 PM in Froom 111 at the Town Office Building �~ fi 71 /t-,::< r.." , Frank T. Parrish, Jr/ Chairman - 14 - APPENDIX D MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE NAME ADDRESS OCCUPATION TELEPHONE Arthur Burrell 2 Thoreau Road Insurance 861-0271 Lexington Advisor Mary Louise Burri 14 Holland Street Home-maker 862-7233 Lexington John T. Harvell 131 ,Burlington Street Engineer 862-4423 Lexington Patricia K. Hagedorn 17 Fiske Road Lawyer 862-9172 (Secretary ) Lexington George F. McCormack 32 Hayes Lane Construction 862-5832 Lexington Superintendent Frank T. Parrish, Jr. 5 Juniper Place Investments 862-2423 (Chairman) Lexington Stephen Politi 25 Deering Avenue Law student 862-7127 Lexington Samuel Silverman 18 Ingleside Road Physicist 861-0368 Lexington Weiant Wathen-Dunn 44 Maple Street Physicist 862-0943 Lexington - 15 -