RECAP: MEETING OF THE OUTREACH, COMMUNICATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL (OCA) (6/17/19)

Editor’s Note:  Beginning this week,  The Indy will be posting recaps of the meetings of the Outreach Communications and Appointments Committee of the Town Council (OCA)  and will endeavor to find volunteers to cover the other standing committees of the council as well. Much of the critical discussion that shapes what happens at Town Council meetings takes place in standing committees.  For example, all appointments to town committees pass through OCA before going to the council for final approval and OCA has spent considerable time over the past few months, debating and developing the policies that govern appointments.  But the time gap between the actual meetings and the posting of minutes and video of the proceedings is typically more than a month, making it difficult for residents to track issues that are coming before the council and to weigh in while policy is still in formation.
The charge for  OCA can be found here.
Readers who would like to assist in covering standing committee meetings should contact us at amherstindy@gmail.com

Recap of OCA Committee Meeting held from  9:30 AM – 12:30 PM in the Town Room of Town Hall on  June 17, 2019.
Present: Sarah Swartz (chair),  Darcy Dumont, Evan Ross, George Ryan. Alissa Brewer arrived late.

The meeting began with the approval of minutes for meetings held between MAR 18-JUN 6. (note: as of this writing the last OCA  minutes posted on the town web site are draft minutes from  the meeting of 5/6/19).

The rest of the meeting focused on discussion of the appointment process and on OCA’s recommendations for the appointment of resident (non-voting) members to the Finance Committee.

Town Manager’s Appointments to Several Commissions

First up were the Town Manager’s nominations for appointments to several committees including the town’s Historical Commission.  OCA is charged with making a recommendation on these nominations to the full Town Council and considerable time was spent discussing the question:  does OCA have enough information to make a recommendation to the council and what precisely would they need to make a meaningful recommendation? (Note: this same topic has been discussed at length at other OCA meetings.)

Councilor George Ryan (District 3) noted that four of the six nominations were for reappointments, apparently none of whom had served the designated term limit of six years.  The only information that OCA receives about the candidates is a brief biography provided by the Town Manager. (You can read the Town Manager’s memos here.)

Councilor Evan Ross (District 4) observed that these biographical summaries are variable with some providing comprehensive information and some being pretty thin.  Ross noted that the latter was the case for a couple of the Historical Commission nominees. Ryan and OCA chair Sarah Swartz (District 1) noted that they don’t have much information on the reappointments because the Town Manager chooses not to interview candidates for reappointment.  Ross argued that while the Town Manger is providing more information about his nominees than he did previously, OCA is still not getting the information that they need to make a meaningful decision. Ross noted that it’s not so much a matter of more information that is needed but information germane  to what the given committee does. What do the candidates bring to the committee that’s relevant to the work they are going to do? Ross noted that OCA needs this kind of information for the reappointees as well. “Unless we were around when they were originally appointed, we don’t really know anything about why they were originally appointed” he stated.

Councilor Darcy Dumont (District 5)  requested that OCA ask the Town Manager for at least a little bit more information on why a given person was chosen for a given committee.

Ross observed that the Town Manager provided a lot more information for reappointments to the Public Arts Commission and Human Rights Commission and so he would like to see more consistency across the appointment recommendations.

Ryan said  that he supports the Town Manager and Resident Advisory Committee (RAC) position that interviewing reappointments is a waste of time but he does support OCA’s desire for more (and more consistent) information.

Brewer offered the historical perspective that when the Select Board confirmed Town Manager appointments,  it was understood to be a rubber stamp. She also noted that the Select Board had the Community Activity Forms (CAF) in hand when they approved the nominations.  This is not the case for the Town Council.

Ross continued to raise questions about the confirmation process.  He asked: what is the role of OCA in recommending (or not) the Town Manager’s nominations?  He noted, as he has in previous meetings, that OCA and the council have not really had a thorough discussion of what the role of OCA is in this process and what kind of information they need to make a recommendation to the full council. He suggested that under the current process all OCA can do is rubber stamp what they receive from the Town Manager.  He lamented that the process doesn’t allow him to participate in a meaningful way. He said that currently, OCA is just a pass-through to the council (and in fact the council finds itself in the same situation). It is not clear what the full council expects from from an OCA recommendation. Ross noted that if the council asked why OCA recommended a particular candidate, OCA often would have little basis for a response.

In response to this, Ryan suggested that OCA’s job is to make sure that the established process has been followed but that OCA should not be second guessing the Town Manager’s judgments.  His memo has a full description of the screening and appointment process. OCA’s job, according to Ryan, is simply to assure that established process was followed.

Dumont noted that Massachusetts has ruled against the town’s policy of keeping CAFs confidential and that if confidentiality is lifted, OCA will have a lot more information to work with. (OAC does not currently see the CAFs for Town Manager Appointments nor are they informed of the number of applicants in the pool).    Brewer responded that the town is likely to appeal the State’s judgment and that she does not expect to be seeing the CAFs any time soon.  She further noted that if the CAFs do become public they are likely to be changed to restrict information about the candidate.

Ross clarified that he only seeks a little more information. He also thinks it would be a good idea for the Town Manager to be present when his nominations are discussed so he can answer questions.  Ross suggested that they postpone the Historic Commission vote until they can resolve this. Ryan countered that what they have in place works and that OCA should trust the process and that it’s time to move on. He noted that he has often disagreed with specific people on the Historic Commission but that it’s not his job to contest their individual views or their suitability.

Brewer pointed out that the charter gives councilors the right to not confirm for a reason but councilors don’t have the information that they would need to establish what the reason might be. For Ryan the only reason would be failure to follow the established process.  He stated “ it is not our job to review the actual candidates or to second guess the people who did the screening.”

Brewer then re-raised her concern that chairs of committees who are up for reappointment (for Town Manager’s appointments) also sit on the committee that conducts interviews of candidates. (This is not something that OCA does with their nominations.)   She argued that the number of vacancies on any committee ought to be a matter of public information.   She also reminded OCA that even if the Town Council wants to do things differently, the Town Manager (as he has  pointed out at the previous OCA meeting) is under no obligation under the Charter to meet their requests. Brewer notes that “some of us are not ready to trust the entire process – we would like more info.”

Ryan suggested that OCA make two requests:

1. That the town manager be present during OCA’s  discussion of nominations.
2. That OCA be provided with more information on each of the candidates re: why is this candidate good for this particular body and that this information be more consistent across all nominations.

Brewer asked for more specificity about appointees.  She wants more than a listing of candidates’ degrees.  She wants a narrative of what each candidate brings to the job.  And she pointed out the problem of “resume bias” i.e., that an “older resume” will usually trump  a “younger resume.” Brewer asked that OCA move forward with a recommendation on Historic Commission nominees but let the Town Manager  know what they would like to see, commend him for working with the council, and ask him to continue to move in that direction. Brewer pointed out that they have already established a decision tree for processing the Town Manager’s appointments, but Ross responded that OCA can’t answer the questions posed in their own decision tree.

Ross was asked to draft a memo with these requests and bring it back to the committee expeditiously.

MOVED BY SWARTZ:   To recommend to the Town Council approval of the Town Manger’s nominations to the Historic Commission (approved 5-0).

SIMILAR MOTIONS were made for the Human Rights Commission, Public Art Commission, and Historic District Commission (all approved 5-0).  These will come before the full council at their July 1 meeting.

Non-Resident Appointments To The Finance Committee

Councilor Dumont, the OCA designee for reviewing appointments to the Finance Committee (i.e. the person who screened the candidates, did the interviews, and made the recommendations) summarized her nominations of three individuals to be the resident (non-voting) members of the finance committee:

Mary Lou Theilman, Sharon Povinelli, and Robert Hegner.  (Read the full nomination memo here).

Dumont noted that two of the nominees (Theilman and Povinelli)  had served on the Finance Committee previously and one (Hegner) is new to town service.

Following her review of her process, other committee members raised several concerns.

Brewer complained that the questions asked by Dumont in the interviews were not precisely the ones that OCA had approved. Dumont replied that they were indeed the same but simply with minor tweaks in wording.  Brewer and Ross offered the example that for one question Dumont had asked “What do you think is the role of the resident member of the finance committee” where the script called for “What do you envision the role of the resident member to be?”

Ross also asked why the Town Manager was not present at the interviews.

Dumont responded that the interview committee is assembled at her discretion according to the established process and that she chose to have Sonia Aldrich, the Town Comptroller, in lieu of the Town Manager.  She said that the Town Manger concurred with this decision and that she found Aldrich’s input to be extremely helpful. Swartz noted that she spoke with the Town Manager about this and that she shared Dumont’s interpretation. But, she noted that interviewees and OCA should know who is going to be in the room before interviews start.

Ross and Brewer voiced their expectations for 15 min interviews with the town manager present and objected to Dumont’s extending interview time to 25 minutes and to her excluding the Town Manager.  Dumont countered that extending interview time is within the discretion granted the interviewer. The committee responded that they were nonetheless surprised because it was a deviation from what the other four OCA committee interviewers did. Ross and Brewer noted that because the OCA designee is invested with so much power,  they would instill confidence if they worked within the established lines and did not improvise or deviate from what others have done. Brewer then asked for clarification of precisely what discretion the designee has. Considerable discussion ensued on whether Dumont had deviated too much from established protocols.

Ryan noted that “we’re learning by doing.”  He said he understands the decisions that Dumont made and asked all to acknowledge ”that everyone is trying to do the right thing,  that protocols matter and that we’ll continue to improve our process.”

Swartz then turned attention to how applicants are informed of decisions and said that OCA needs a script and follow-up protocol for notifying everyone about  appointments once the nominations are made.

Brewer then informed OCA that  there was at least one applicant to the Finance Committee that was not listed in the interview schedule.  She suggested that OCA did not get the CAF for this person, although the Town Manager’s office says a CAF was filed.  OCA says this person’s CAF did not appear in the applicant pool. Brewer said she isn’t sure why that person’s name did not appear on the interview list, and that now OCA has  to figure out what to do about this person.

Ross asked whether this is an isolated case.  Or does this indicate that town staff is making decisions for the Town Council appointed committees?  Applicants have also voiced concern that they don’t know what the status of their applications is or whether they have even been received.  Swartz noted that the Town Council

needs to be certain that every CAF received gets to the Town Manager and/or the appropriate reviewing committees.

Ryan asserted that OCA can’t move forward with the Finance Committee nominations if the process was violated and asked to postpone any further action until OCA gets some answers. Ross moved to table the discussion until the next meeting (June 24). Angela Mills (Assistant to the Town Manager) will come to that meeting  and address OCA and further explain the situation. OCA agreed that they will take no further action until they hear from Mills.

Dumont asked what the process would be if they nullify the Finance Committee process and start over,  given that the positions have already been offered. Brewer responded that this was a mistake and that the government will have to own it but “we can’t ‘rewind the clock’ and restart the process.”  Brewer pointed out that those who have already been informed about their appointments need to be informed that the process is on hold and why.