|
|
Q&A: Selectmen, former commissioners on appointment process
by Sydney Blackwell · Friday, December 16, 2011
Two weeks ago, two Harvard Historical Commission members, then Chair Roseanne Saalfield and former chair and current alternate Jonathan Feist, resigned in response to the Board of Selectmen unexpectedly filling a vacancy on the Historical Commission without input from the commission.
The nomination and 3-2 vote to appoint Barbara Hadad came while the commission was still in the process of interviewing candidates. Selectmen Bill Johnson, Ron Ricci, and Peter Warren voted for the appointment, while Marie Sobalvarro and Tim Clark voted against it.
An earlier seat on the Historical Commission was similarly filled in June. At that meeting, the board appointed Rudy Minar to the Finance Committee and Pam Marston was appointed to the seat on the Historical Commission left by Minar, over procedural objections by Sobalvarro and Clark.
The Press asked for and received comments on the process from
- Former Historical Commission Chair Roseanne Saalfield
- Former Historical Commission member Jonathan Feist
- Selectman Tim Clark
- Selectman Bill Johnson
- Selectman Ron Ricci
- Selectman Marie Sobalvarro
Selectman Peter Warren declined to comment: "At this time, I do not plan to respond."
Note: Questions and responses preceded by an asterisk did not appear in the original version of this article, in the Dec. 16 print edition of the Press.
Press: The two recent Harvard Historical Commission resignations leave vacancies on the Historical Commission for one regular member and an alternate. What process should Selectmen use to fill those two seats?
| |
Ricci: |
 |
| Ron Ricci (File photo) |
The two recent appointees came with excellent qualifications. The earlier appointee has already made contributions to the Historical Commission. The most recent appointee not only brings a great work experience, she demonstrated a keen interest in items relating to the Historical Commission by joining in the most recent Historical Commission perambulation. I am pleased with both appointees and also glad that the Board of Selectmen ensured that both of these two excellent volunteers were treated fairly and with respect.
|
| |
Sobalvarro: |
 |
| Marie Sobalvarro (File photo) |
Given the town bylaws for the establishment of the Harvard Historical Commission, this regular member vacancy is appointed from among the nominee or nominees determined by the Conservation [Commission]. The alternate is at the discretion of the Selectmen, so my comments are exclusive to the alternate's appointment. The Board of Selectmen should step back and let the committee assess current member skills/interests/capabilities, encourage interested folks to attend a meeting or two and submit their volunteer form(s). At that point, the Board of Selectmen should seek the recommendation of the Historical Commission chair, as we've done with all other committees, excluding the Historical Commission. In my two years' experience on the Board, we have appointed the individual(s) recommended by the chair/committee on every occasion, excluding the Historical Commission.
|
| |
*Clark: |
* We have a clear process in our policies and procedures of the Board of Selectmen. My board chose to disregard them. The member board should be able to submit a recommended candidate following their internal interviews. The Board of Selectmen should not obstruct or short circuit the process. |
Press: How urgent is it that they be filled? Why the rush?
| |
Sobalvarro: |
I personally do not see this as an urgent appointment; I'm more concerned about other committees that have long-term vacancies.
|
| |
Johnson: |
 |
| Bill Johnson (File phoot) |
"Urgency" to fill committee vacancies is generally driven by a repeated inability to achieve a quorum. This has not historically been a problem for Historical Commission. However, when we do have an interested candidate, we should move responsively to evaluate that person and appoint her/him if they can offer useful service. Otherwise we are sending a message that we don't welcome and value interested volunteers.
|
| |
Feist: |
Why are the selectmen rushing to fill these appointments? My best guess is that they are trying to prepare the way for decisions that are aligned with their plans. I hope they consider their major sensitive projects to be disposition of the town buildings. So, if we take the conspiracy theory approach, my best guess is that they are appointing people friendly to their perspective on those, particularly restoration of Town Hall.
More likely, though, is that they simply don't think it is important to pay attention to who is on what board, and therefore dispense with this duty as quickly as they can. A volunteer shows up, so they place her, and move on to the next issue. It is horrendous business practice, but at least it reduces the clutter on their desks.
|
| |
Saalfield: |
…One could certainly wonder if there are political or personal motivations around the bum's rush the Historical Commission appointment process has now been given.
It's very hard not to see the rush as exactly what it appears to be: a determination…to eliminate the voice of the Historical Commission in the process of recruiting its new members, to repeatedly and persistently make the point that the will of the Board of Selectmen trumps the understanding, needs and experience of the Historical Commission.
|
Press: What areas of expertise and other qualifications are important for a well-functioning Historical Commission?
| |
Clark: |
 |
| Tim Clark (File photo) |
The way the Historical Commission is constructed there are a few seats that are compulsory in their requirements—one must be an architect, one a licensed realtor, one designated by the Planning Board, etc. Work before the Historical Commission can be very technical and requires multiple disciplines. Research of state guidelines and understanding of Mass. General Law is required. Being a friend or associate of a selectman is insufficient criteria for selection.
|
| |
Johnson: |
Clearly there are content areas of expertise that are important to the Historical Commission, and many of these are addressed by the defined appointment composition ([American Institute of Architects] rep, Realtor rep, conservation rep, etc.). But in general, all high performance teams, whether in government, industry, or non-for-profit, should embrace diversity of perspective for the most creative problem solving, and constantly refresh themselves with new and different members to avoid stagnant "group-think." This is just as true for the Board of Selectmen as it is for the Historical Commission or any other committee or board in town
|
| |
*Saalfield: |
* The commission is now blessed with a very talented and articulate architect in Doug Coots. Our enabling legislation requires that a member of the [American Institute of Architects] sit on the Commission. The reasons are obvious. The commission now also has a general contractor and a realtor, professions whose experience can be very helpful much of the time.
In the perfect world I would also like the commission to have among its membership a landscape architect or historian, an experienced architectural preservationist, a lawyer, an urban planner, good writers, and a smattering of folk with a creative, level-headed but energetic approach to community activism. An activist mind-set, particularly when the economic use of funds is imperative, is particularly important so that the commission can advocate for a variety of solutions to the challenges the town faces. Access to limited funds should not mean the spending of none. Deferred maintenance of significant structures in our districts - the Town Hall, the cast iron markers in our Shaker Burial Ground - makes the eventual job of stabilizing these structures - and, even more importantly, of improving them and making them more responsive to the needs of the current citizenry - more onerous and expensive.
|
| |
*Feist:
|
* Many types of experience are potentially helpful. People with specific knowledge in preservation and conservation are always a great help. Someone good at coordinating volunteers to do projects would help too. We could use a landscape designer, a marketing expert, a lawyer, a fundraiser....
The way to look at is to review the work before us and see what's necessary. I think there are some bylaw issues to sort out, so a lawyer would help, now. Also, as the major projects happen in town center, landscape design will become increasingly important. And coordinating volunteers to do things like weeding near the Shaker Herb Drying House is always helpful.
Appointments like these are opportunities for the town to save money by bringing in experts to serve as volunteers. Filling seats with warm bodies is ultimately as wasteful as any pork project, because it then requires us to hire experts or to undo work that was done improperly. And we see that all the time. |
Press: What projects, proposals, or issues are likely to come before the commission in 2012?
| |
Clark: |
Can we cut to the chase here? The reason this appointment was rammed through was to stack the Historical Commission with people who are likely to oppose any modification or alteration of Town Hall and prevent its expansion, and secondly, to build a membership of the Historical Commission sympathetic to the Cemetery Commission's desire to powder coat all the markers in the Shaker Cemetery. [Selectmen Ron] Ricci and [Bill] Johnson perceive any expansion of the Town Hall to accommodate the needs of the town now and well into the future as a waste of public funds, despite overwhelming public support, data, and information that support the need for an expanded Town Hall. As far as I can tell, they continue to press on and obstruct the process in any way they can. Talk about wasting public funds and volunteers' time and efforts, using up those resources to serve their personal interests rather than focusing on the substantive issue of solving the problems we face with a decaying building like Town Hall and rebuilding a fragmented volunteer government. |
Press: What process should Selectmen follow to fill the other vacancies on other town boards and commissions?
| |
Johnson: |
The Board of Selectmen's Policies and Procedures for appointments is the same for all committees. We reaffirmed this process at our [Nov. 15] meeting, adding a consideration to allow a written recommendation from the committee in lieu of the chair attending the Board of Selectmen meeting at time of appointment.
It is important to note that the committee recommendation is but that—a recommendation. And its value and validity is dependent on open and equal consideration being given to ALL interested parties, with the recommendation reflecting the inputs of the entire committee and not just a select few.
At the time of appointment, it is the responsibility of the Selectmen to make their own assessment of the candidate that will best serve the town as a whole, taking into account not only the committee's recommendation but also their own assessment of all the entire candidate pool, and their perspective of the broader needs of the town.
If any committee fails to run a fair and open process that embraces all interested candidates, it is incumbent on the Selectmen to ensure it happens at their level.
As mentioned above, the most urgent positions to fill are in any committees that are struggling to make a quorum. But as noted above, we should be respectful and responsive when volunteers come forward for any open position.
|
| |
Clark: |
See our Policies and Procedures. There is always a need for new volunteers. It seems, however, that the vacancies are open longer and longer. Most likely because of the hostile climate. Why would you want to volunteer and be subjected to public humiliation? |
*Press to Feist and Saalfield: Is there an example of when experience/expertise particularly helped the committee make a decision beneficial to the town – or lack of it had an effect?
| |
*Feist: |
* There are so many examples.
Years ago, a former town administrator brought to the Historical Commission an elaborate and expensive plan to put a horrific addition onto Town Hall in order to accommodate legal requirements for handicap accessibility. Our then-architect, Ron Ostberg, analyzed the situation, and instead suggested bringing up the level of the parking lot so that no ramp would be needed. His solution was dramatically cheaper than what was proposed, and it avoided yet another eye-sore onto an already suffering building. So, having really good architects such as Ron and now Doug are critically important, and they have saved the town a lot of money and angst, over the years. The library addition was similarly greatly improved by Doug Coots' design input. Without him there, we'd have wound up with a much more garish addition, which I'm sure wouldn't have won the design award that it did.
Not having someone with specific legal advice has been a problem, in my opinion. There are subtleties of procedure that have left us vulnerable and resulted in significant damage. I believe, for example, that we made a technically illegal vote in granting a "Certificate of Hardship" to someone who put contemporary windows on their house, when it didn't conform to the legal definition of hardship. I believe that Town Counsel made a mistake in the definition of structure that has led to the systematic destruction of the Shaker cemetery. And I believe that the 40B housing development on Littleton Road is illegal, encroaching into the historical district boundaries. Because we were without someone with sufficient technical ability in navigating laws and processes, the town's historic landscape has degraded, and we are all the worse for it.
|
*Press: Given the Historical Commission resignations and subsequent citizen comments, should the board reconsider its recent Historical appointment and process?
| |
*Clark:
|
* We should follow the procedure or throw it out. The Board of Selectmen members have been given the opportunity to change it yet they offered no changes. Some board members periodically ignore our policies as they see fit to meet their political agendas.
I find it ironic that the selectmen who as candidates said that the "selectmen have a strangle hold on other boards and committees" promising to "change the way we do business in this town" have elected to strangle and emasculate a perfectly functional and talented committee like the Historical Commission so that it will serve their personal agenda.
|
| |
*Johnson: |
* Two excellent candidates had their hands raised for many weeks for the two most recent Historical Commission openings. The Selectmen stepped in to ensure fair and courteous consideration of their applications. I am confident that both the Historical Commission and the Town as a whole will be well served by both appointees. Now THAT is what supporting volunteerism in Harvard should be all about.
|
| |
*Sobalvarro: |
* I believe that the members who were appointed without input from the Historical Commission have already been sworn in. I'm uncertain about what would be involved technically with such a motion, and about how a move to reconsider would impact the committee and said individuals. As stated earlier, the Board of Selectmen should either follow its stated process, or change its stated process.
|
Editor's note: Throughout their interviews, which were conducted by email, the interviewees referred to the Harvard Historical Commission by the acronym HHC and the Board of Selectmen by the acronym BOS. For the sake of clarity, the Harvard Press has taken the liberty of spelling out the names of those boards.
 Comments
1
Friday, December 16, 2011 at 1:33 PM
To be clear, my resignation wasn't just because the BoS filled the seats without the HHC's input. It was because they deliberately deceived us in order to exclude us from the appointment process. And this is in a wider context of similar intolerable activities on their part, undermining the Historical Commission's work.
It only makes sense for people to volunteer if their good faith efforts are supported and high-quality work can be accomplished. I left because these circumstances no longer seemed possible, given the current leanings and administrative practices of the BoS.
Jonathan Feist
2
Friday, December 16, 2011 at 5:22 PM
My intent during the recruiting process for both of the last two open positions on the HHC was to schedule all candidates for interviews with the Commission as expeditiously as possible.
In the case of the June appointment the applicant was appointed by the Board of Selectmen before she could even be scheduled for a meeting with us. Her first monthly meeting was the first time most members of the Commission had ever met her and the first time any of us had spoken with her in a professional capacity.
The applicant for our opening this fall was invited to meet with us at our November meeting, the first meeting on the calendar following her declaration of interest in joining the Commission. In neither situation did I delay - or intend to delay - the candidate's appearance before the HHC. At our November meeting I explained that another applicant was scheduled to meet with us in December and that we would make no recommendation to the Board of Selectmen until we had completed all interviews. The applicant agreed, with apparent equanimity.
I confirmed with the office of the Town Administrator that I had no obligation to attend the BoS meeting of Nov 10 because no appointment would be made, at our request, until December. The candidate was, however, invited to be present at that meeting by someone she would not identify but whom I now deduce was likely Selectmen Ricci.
The extraordinary discourtesy of this whole process - the deceit and unprofessionalism - is discouraging beyond measure and, for me at least, completely defeats my willingness to offer my time to the town, at least for now. I cannot imagine a citizen who would volunteer to be helpful when such goings on are commonplace, where trust and openness are uncertain, at best.
During the recruiting process for the second opening I contacted (by e mail or phone) over 15 people, 75% of whom were Harvard residents I have never met. I made this time-consuming effort to talk to a broad range of people precisely to insure that the widest range of candidates might come before us, allowing us the opportunity - which I had mistakenly thought was both a right and an obligation - to evaluate as many citizens as possible. I now know otherwise.
Roseanne Saalfield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|