Transparency: June 2009 Archives
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
June 4, 2009
Editorial
Everything about public meetings should be made as public-friendly as possible. That means posting agendas online (consistently, and as far in advance as possible, please), holding non-public sessions at the end of meetings whenever humanly possible, and allowing the public the most convenient method for making comments about town affairs. Recentdecisions and conversations of various local boards and committees have stirred up some controversy regarding how public comments should be handled at public meetings. In Sanbornton selectmen had to reprioritize after backlash from residents about moving public input sessions to the end of meetings. The move angered some,who said the change was an attempt to keep them from being heard, specifically because Sanbornton’s meetings can run late. Ultimately, the board put the sessions back to the beginning of each meeting, which we think was the right thing to do.
Moultonboro changed its policy recently as well, also drawing fire from the town’s more vocal citizens. Instead of allowing residents to comment and ask questions as the meeting progressed, it restricts public input to the beginning and end of each selectmen’s meeting. It might be more conducive to informed input if the board would consider handing out packets of information prior to the meeting. It’s difficult for members of the public to do more than ask questions to figure out what the issue is – and after the vote is cast and the decision made, everyone just wants to go home. It’s unlikely that a vote would be changed, once cast, as the selectmen have suggested they could do if swayed by public input. In its organizational meeting just last week, the Gilford Budget Committee discussed the issue, trying to decide where to place public input on the agenda so residents would have a fair shot to voice concerns or make comments at a relevant time. They, respectably, want to ensure that the public can talk freely before a vote, but perhaps after committee discussion so the speakers are informed. Also making an effort to respect the public, the Tilton Board of Selectmen just started holding a public input session at its meetings. Often there is no input, but occasionally the opening has given interested residents a chance to speak informally without having to make an appointment. It hasn’t appeared to slow the board down in terms of getting things done, and citizens have peace of mind that, should they ever want to throw out a comment or raise a concern, they will have the opportunity and ability to do so. Boards and committees are meant to be working for the residents of a town, so it doesn’t make sense to us when they make residents jump over hurdles to get a chance to speak (or get a hold of an agenda or meeting minutes, for that matter). We understand that they need to get things done, and that sometimes public comments sessions can get out of hand in terms of length or topic, but the board does have the ability to limit speaking time, or to offer a timeslot on the agenda should the topic warrant one.
