dd Littleton Common

“If you never change your mind, why have one??"


Saturday, February 27, 2010

It is election time!


Well, it's election season again! With that comes many different thoughts. Our election process is designed to ensure that government is by the people for the people. That is quite true at the local level, but mind-boggling as we work our way up through government. I want to focus on our local election.

One thing we need is greater public interest. That’s not easy with our demanding lives. It is easy to simply observe the local politics. One problem with that is the loss of accountability when the public is not engaged and observing; the other results in more of the same.

Key regulatory races year after year go unchallenged. An example is the Board of Health, an important Board which has a huge impact on the environment, economic development, response to public health emergencies such as H1N1 and more. There was/is a recent controversy over the handling of a popular school principal. Again, another Board with a huge impact on the cost and quality of what we turn out of the Littleton school district. The election process is a process of accountability as well a civic responsibility.

You get it, I know you get it, but I will bet you often think you don’t have the time or are simply too frustrated with politics in general, it’s not for you. True, it’s a very different way of doing things and has a way of demanding your time, effort and often prompts frustration. However, from my experience, it’s been worth it; there is much to be proud of and differences have been made for sure. So, give public service a try you will find it a very unselfish and sometimes rewarding venture.

Now on to my other point… I recently got a call from a potential candidate for selectman, one of our somewhat regularly contested positions. This person was calling to cull my public support and told me that they had the support of all the other board members.

Without question I support the idea of a race , but where I get hung up is with the question of should sitting Selectmen support a candidate? Some people say yes, some no.

Last year, I asked the Board to adopt a policy that kept sitting selectmen out of the political foray. (We all know what happened with that.) We should not be trying to influence successors; that just seems less representative and more dictatorial. On the other hand , we may, by virture of our position, have knowledge of a candidate and know they would serve our Town well. (To be clear, I have supported candidates in the past but as I look back I question if I should going forward while sitting on the Board.) I know from my own personal experience that when that happens, there is both a feeling of obligation and/or a riff to be overcome after the election. I am sure you remember how well a board locked in conflict and mistrust behaves and operates.

Last year was quite a different year; the election was polarized, animosity persisted from the past resulting in an exceptionally demanding election. In that case, sitting politicians were lined up to tout support for a certain candidate. Should that happen? Who is the candidate supposed to please, other politicians or the public? Fortunately, that type of election is not typical at the local level. I have truly not decided if I should publicly endorse the candidate who called me or stay silent. I wish we, the selectmen, could have discussed the merits from a policy perspective, on camera, in front of our constituents, before going one way or another. So, we will see how this plays out. I hope I never see a headline such as “Successor Hand Picked by Board.”

Here you can help me serve you better. Please let me know what you think.

P.S. Choosing philosophically to support candidates or not, I will not support any candidate who does not embrace the Code of Conduct and Ethics policy adopted by the Board. We cannot have an expectation of our appointees or employees that is optional for us. There it is… that accountability thing again!

posted by Alex McCurdy at 1:15 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

ANNUAL GREEN FORUM WILL HAPPEN IN THE FALL!


For the last two years, LittletonCommon.org has sponsored a Green Forum. The event invites timely speakers to present in an informal and social gathering where townspeople and others can interact on the issues at hand.

As you may recall, we’ve held this at the end of the winter season. Last year, the event (not at Littleton Common.org’s hand), developed a political/election season overtone and some people chose not to attend out of fear of looking like they supported my candidacy. And...it got worse from there!

Consequently, we have decided to hold the event in the fall. Our intent is and has always been to provide a forum for public interest in timely and locally influential issues. The Green Forum is a place where friendly dialog is supposed to spark interest and solutions “common” to Littleton. We are committed to maintaining just that and will do that in the fall!

posted by Alex McCurdy at 11:13 AM 1 Comments Links to this post

Sunday, January 17, 2010

THE BARKING DOG HAS BEEN SILENCED...BUT IT HAD QUITE A BITE!


As you probably know, the Barking Dog proposal is now history. The matter was closed when the Planning Board issued a second denial based upon the site plan review and no appeal was filed to the last PB decision. To many people, this is a victory and I agree, for the most part.

The process of denial was both a politically charged and legally challenging event, i.e., the primary casualty being the taxpayer who now foots the bill for all of the litigation. In the end, the Town did the right thing and I thank the Planning Board for their painstaking hard work which finally brought this to conclusion.

The point of this posting, however, is not just the Barking Dog, but also to talk a bit about legal fees. No other line item in the budget is challenged more for appropriateness and justification, yet the public is often kept in the dark.

The Board of Selectmen is allowed by law to go into a closed “Executive Session” under MGL Chapter 39, Section 23B to “discuss strategy with respect to litigation.” I hope the need to be in Executive Session here is obvious, as open session hands a distinct advantage to the opposing party.

Therefore we, The Board of Selectmen, are making choices (usually as a response) that ultimately generate legal fees. The members of the Board are always very concerned about running costs of litigation and have to make a choice based on the ultimate benefit to the Town. Sometimes we are in a “no choice” situation when the litigation is based on an action of another Board or Committee such as is the case of the Barking Dog. (By the way, this case cost the Town over $34,000 in legal fees to conclude.) The point is that legal fees are a tough pill to swallow and I am painfully aware of that. We must however look at the so called big picture, toward the future and make choices that are best for the Town because in almost every legal case, precedence will be set.

So let’s go back to the Barking Dog. Now that that matter is closed, it’s a bit easier to speak about it. What went wrong? In a recent discussion at a BOS meeting, our Board members admit that this issue did not attract their attention when it first was presented before the ZBA. That is true of a lot of people. Throughout this controversy, many people with whom I spoke could not imagine that the ZBA would permit such a radical change to this residentially zoned property, to simply bypass the intent of Town zoning bylaws…I wonder how, in view of the fact that the property was already mired into another disputed issue (the placement of a cell tower in the area).

When the matter got to the Planning Board, they apparently had a very different view, considered these two factors, and began the task of straightening things out. As I said, this process cost the Town at least $34,000. Worth it? Yes. Avoidable? YES.

A more open government with checks and balances helps in this situation. The ZBA can sometimes move ahead drawing little public attention. Notifications do meet the minimum criteria, but input may be limited to a single hearing process not covered by any media. Can’t we do better than this? Zoning changes are so important that they require a 2/3 majority vote of Town Meeting.

There is something wrong with an “under the radar circumventing approach” to all of this. At the very least, the ZBA rules need to be changed to reflect the gravity of zoning change precedent. Another is the makeup of the ZBA. It may be nice to have knowledgeable people on that Board, but we need to be very careful when the work they do runs close to conflicts of interest or decisions that could have a financial impact on their business activities. There is one member of the ZBA whose job relates to zoning every day. However that person’s work is done somewhere else, in another community. the point is that the person who works out of town has no conflict of interest and this is ideal. Otherwise great caution through complete recusal and full disclosure should be the rule. "Any doubt then you're out."


We also need public awareness and participation. I became focused on this matter when I got a phone call from a constituent expressing concern. Voters need to stay tuned in and I thank them for that in this case. Keep it up, your efforts helped make the boards aware of the negative impacts of this proposal. Public involvement is a positive thing.

I know that if the Town was my company and a Barking Dog type-of-thing happened, heads would roll. It is not my company and I have no such power, but we do need to work to reform some things, open things up and hold people accountable. We cannot afford another Barking Dog.

posted by Alex McCurdy at 9:57 AM 3 Comments Links to this post

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Another Déjàvu...again?

A few months ago, I authored a Déjàvu post…(the feeling of having an experience all over again). In that message, I challenged the issues surrounding the firing of an employee by an “independent” and “autonomous” board. Now here we are, yet again, with a furor related to the future of a popular school principal. Once again, we see a public clamoring for answers and elected officials unable or unwilling to provide them. Behind it all, there are a myriad of laws and philosophies that seem to be adding fuel to the fire. On the local media blog, there are questions, comments and expressed anger driven by the frustration with this situation. As with most non-direct dialog, some local characters seize the opportunity with "keyboard pontification."

Is this healthy debate or divisive rhetoric? Who really knows, but this is America, Land of the Free, so it doesn’t matter. (I must say that I wouldn’t mind going a round or two with a particular character who continues to pontificate.) OK, I won’t, but I want to add some reflecting perspective to the situation.

The School Committee is a popularly elected Board and they are responsible for general oversight of the school district. This Board hires the Superintendent, who in turn makes staff and operational policy decisions. Some staff issues such as certain personnel administration issues are protected from the general public view by law. Items of general finance, strategy, philosophy and policy are public and thereby subject to any level of scrutiny and inquiry by the residents. The blend-line of these is where the conflict heats up. Apparently, the person whose contract will not be renewed has generally pleased the public, but not the Superintendent. The Superintendent has decided it’s time to part ways with this person; The School Committee backs that decision, but the public still demands to know why.

My questions are about what should be public and what should not. If the Principal does not fit the current philosophies and policies of the Superintendent, then that should be aired with something like “We are shifting our operational philosophies; this person no longer is the best choice”, or... “Our expectations, our goals, etc. are not mutually agreeable.”

To me, that thinking is public and open, score one for the involved voters. If the School Committee won’t honor that, then the voters already know what to do about that (and from the scuttlebutt out there, it appears they are planning on exercising that right).

On the other hand, it’s possible that the problem could be personal issues or matters held as confidential by law. With that is the threat of litigation, so mum is the word from the School Committee. Score one for the School Committee. (I think where this gets curious is the fact that there is no word about disciplinary actions which would trigger confidentiality.) Rather, what we’re talking about is a decision not to renew or re-negotiate a contract. That seems to me to be an area where more information should be forthcoming rather than less. Who scores that point? Nobody, it’s just there.

I could go on and on; truthfully, I know very little about this conflict. I don’t have any more information than the general public. Ah, but the School Committee is autonomous so they bear no responsibility to share that information, right?

If and when this type of situation happens under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen, here is how I hope we would handle it: I would not be comfortable simply citing confidentiality laws as a way to be absolved from the public’s interest or right to know. I suspect that when we say ,“legal counsel has advised us to say nothing” we put ourselves in a bad spot. I hope our Board would work to diffuse the mystery of such matters by remaining as open as possible.

The School Committee has a policy that states only the Chair speaks for the Committee; this adds even more mystery. I would never support such a policy on our Board; it’s less open and seems less representative.

As a Selectmen, I would hope that the mangers we hire manage the situation with an amicable solution before it turns into a public may lay. (That’s why we hire professionals.) I hope our Board holds those professionals accountable and while we need to support them, that backing must be contingent upon accountability. Each time our Board heads off in a certain direction on the many issues that are presented, there are people who come forward with questions. Good! We do much better than previous Boards at listening and that has given us credibility that I hope will be recognized when a matter of public vs. private debate surfaces.

All in all, we must remain steadfast with the fact we are the serving the citizens, we are not powerful but simply empowered, and that the voter has the right to judge us. The voters in the above case, the other Déjàvu cases I have written about and, heck, even my own case as Fire Chief, don’t necessarily have all the information when they form an opinion, but they do have three things: the absolute right to speak out, the money our government needs to operate and the power of the vote.

posted by Alex McCurdy at 11:21 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

OVERLAY PLANNING - PLAN FORWARD

I was recently approached by a resident as I was helping a farmer friend with Christmas trees. He began by remarking on my performance as a selectman and went on to ask me about the overlay planning. This person was still confused about the overlay and much to my surprise, remarked that if I was comfortable with it, he would be, too. That was a nice compliment, but I would prefer that he reached a conclusion on his own. I want people to form an educated opinion on this. It’s not any one person’s overlay plan, it’s ours. My job is to help facilitate the planning so that the Town can vote on it. As the conversation continued, I tried to summarize why I think it is a good idea.

Growth is inevitable, but we have to plan for it. We have seen the Common grow in a bit of a haphazard way and most people are not satisfied with what has happened. We have seen pressure to rezone other areas in order to singularly meet the needs of a landowner. That’s not community planning. We’ve seen underutilization of some properties and that stagnates our local economy and consequently the tax base that we need to fuel our community. We’ve heard from some about “sure cure” high cost remedies like starting with a multi-million dollar sewer system. But wait! What is it we want to sewer? Who does that serve? Is there a “net” gain? Yes there are still issues to be worked out.

Economic development is not a goal which is instantly achieved. We have seen some fast-track action in other communities which demoralize the community character. It doesn’t have to be that way and that is why I support overlay planning. To date, our dialog has produced many common visions and goals and while they may not be the type of thing that developers dream of, I believe they will ultimately reflect a balance; the proverbial win/win.

I think it is safe to say that doing nothing, hoping things stay the same, is neither possible or desirable. We have had a few surprises that way, which is the point. Who thought we would end up with a large car dealership? Instead of reeling back in shock when something like that happens, let’s commit to “forward” planning. To me, overlay planning is doing just that.

So, from that conversation, one thing remains clear. We have yet to produce a level of understanding of this planning process that will pass muster with the townspeople. So, those involved in the planning must persevere and continue, planning as openly as possible. I urge citizens to take an interest, be involved. The net product will not be that of the Planning Board, Selectmen or developer visions, it will be yours, it will be ours, it will be Littleton’s. Let’s plan forward, then when we look back we might like what we see.

posted by Alex McCurdy at 6:53 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Monday, September 28, 2009

ETHICS TRAINING...IT'S A GOOD THING!


Good news for all town officials and residents! There have been some changes in the Conflict of Interest Law which all public employees are subject to; the State has mandated that each public official read the information on the website; take the "test" and certify with the Town Clerk that they have complied with this requirement. This IS good news for us, and for you. It can be a daunting task to keep up with the Law, but it is a requirment and now there is much more accountability for compliance. I have completed the training from the Ethics website, (see the text of my certificate below) and I hope every public official does the same. Accountability, ethics and knowledge, what more can you ask of your public officials?

The new Conflict of Interest Law becomes effective Sept 29, 2009. Within 30 days of that, each government member (elected, appointed, volunteer) must:

· Certify with the town clerk that they have received a copy of the new Conflict of Interest law
· Take training from the State Ethics web site, and certify with the clerk.
· Town must appoint a senior level employee to become the liaison with the State Ethic Commission.



STATE ETHICS COMMISSION RECEIPT
Conflict of Interest Law Online Training Program
was completed by: Alexander S McCurdy on Sunday, September 27, 2009
Thank you for completing the State Ethics Commission’s online training program.
It is important to keep in mind that information provided in the online training
program is general in nature and is not an exhaustive review of the conflict of
interest law. The Commission staff also regularly offers free educational seminars
at its Boston office, Room 619, One Ashburton Place. Please contact the
Commission at 617-371-9500 if you are interested in attending one of these
sessions or sponsoring an educational seminar at your facility.
The State Ethics Commission provides free, confidential legal advice about how the
law applies in a particular situation. We encourage you to seek legal advice from
the Commission at 617-371-9500 and/or your agency’s legal counsel if you face a
potential conflict of interest. Your agency may have additional restrictions which
regulate your conduct.
For additional information about the Ethics Commission and the conflict of interest
law, please visit www.mass.gov/ethics.
Educational material about the application of the conflict of interest law can be
found at http://www.mass.gov/ethics/educational_materials.html
A summary of the conflict of interest law can be found in The Top Ten Rules State
Employees Need to Know About the Conflict of Interest Law.

It really is a good thing!

posted by Alex McCurdy at 6:09 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Dejavu...all over again!


Déjàvu…it’s the feeling of having an experience all over again, but not really. Well, the faces have changed, but I, (we) have indeed seen this before. I am talking about the recent firing of Bev Cyr, the Administrative Assistant for the Board of Health.

Some of my colleagues might not agree with my statement, but that’s a frame of mind thing and we get to disagree on that. Nonetheless, I (we) have been here before.

I have been blessed with meeting many really good people in this Town; people of honor, courage who stand tall for their beliefs; people committed to holding their public officials to the highest of standards. Bev is such a person. She lives (sometimes at her own personal peril) these standards. At this meeting on August 25th, Bev was terminated from the job she loves. I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to her; she was a professional, hard working employee and was a warm welcoming face in the townhouse.

Anytime we see this type of incident, we need to ask why? You, the voters, need to ask why? What was at the core? Was it sound management, a power struggle or something in between? Were the action of public officials truly rooted in the public’s best interest or was there underling personal or political connotation?

I hope everyone knows that government is unlike the private sector; public officials have a higher standard to uphold. Their actions are subject to public scrutiny by virtue of who and what they are and who they represent: you.

Regretfully, a person has lost their job in a very public fashion. From my perspective, I want to take the opportunity to better understand why and how we can prevent this sort of thing in the future. I want to look at reforms that give you, the public, a heightened level of confidence. I invite comments from both sides of the issue. I hope they can be enlightening in two ways: What went wrong with the system and what can we do to prevent “Déjà vu all over again."

As always, the Moderator will not allow personal attacks, so let’s discuss this logically and sensibly.

posted by Alex McCurdy at 10:58 AM 10 Comments Links to this post

Saturday, August 29, 2009

BOS Goals Finalized and Adopted

The Board of Selectmen goals were finalized and adopted on August 10th. Click on the link to read them and thank you for your continued support and comments relating to our goals! I look forward to your participation at our meetings; you're helping to shape our Town's future.
Link

posted by Alex McCurdy at 7:18 PM 1 Comments Links to this post