The two most recent meetings of the Select Board have been mired in discussions lasting more than an hour on a topic that rarely occupies any of the board’s public meeting time — the appointment of members to the town’s 40 or so volunteer committees.
Needham’s governance is heavily reliant on the work of volunteers. More than 300 volunteers are appointed, not elected, to serve on various town committees to develop and guide the policies that direct how the town is run and how its $247 million town budget is allocated.
The Select Board’s longstanding process for appointments was upended when the state attorney general upheld an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by resident Barbara McDonald questioning the legality of the process used to fill a vacancy on the Needham Housing Authority Board. McDonald was one of six applicants not chosen.
The nub of the ruling was that when the vice chair of the Select Board, who manages appointments, engaged with a peer on another town committee, they effectively formed a public body subject to the provisions of the Open Meeting Law.
The A.G. did not nullify that appointment to the NHA Board, Amanda Berman, but the ruling compelled the Select Board in February to revise its policy to address the A.G.’s concerns.
The Select Board is now grappling with being publicly transparent while not discouraging applicants.
The committee appointment process has operated on auto pilot for decades by following the Select Board Orientation Guide: “The Vice Chair of the Select Board leads the annual appointment and reappointment process for Select Board-appointed seats … Town Manager staff assist the Vice Chair in confirming vacancies and projected vacancies, coordinating interviews with Committee chairs and applicants, and placing appointments on the agenda.”
The vice chair informed the other four members of his/her selections. If there were no objections, the appointments would be placed on the Select Board meeting agenda to be passed by consent — i.e., with no discussion.
If a member were to object, the vice chair could either withdraw the candidate or attempt to overcome the dissenting member’s objection — a feature that raises Open Meeting law concerns.
The appointment process under the new policy led by current Vice Chair Josh Levy has not proceeded smoothly.
For the first time in anyone’s memory, the board at its May 26 meeting engaged in a tense discussion on a proposed appointment and held a roll call vote, voting 3-2 not to appoint one of Levy’s preferred nominees to the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, citing only general concerns over “civility.”
The subsequent hourlong discussion at the board’s next meeting June 9 was also contentious and led the board to put the appointment process on hold to consider further revisions. Town Counsel Chris Heep is scheduled to discuss the policy with the Select Board at its June 23 meeting.
“They have a number of questions and want to make sure they understand what options are available to them to update the policy,” Town Manager Katie King said of the Select Board’s intentions.
Under current policy, the vice chair has discretion to allow members of the committee that is looking to fill an opening to participate and also decide the manner of that participation. The current policy presumes a private conversation can occur that discusses the role of the committee, its goals and what skills and attributes it is seeking generally in its members.
It does not condone any private conversation to vet particular candidates. Having a member of the committee discuss candidates or participate in interviews with applicants would trigger the Open Meeting Law.
Confidentiality vs. transparency
The discussion at the June 9 meeting revolved around the challenge of the board acting transparently while respecting the privacy and reputation of private citizens seeking to serve the town. The point was made many times that it is exceedingly rare for job interviews and/or evaluations to be conducted in the open, both in the public and private sectors.
“One of my main concerns is to balance the participation of committee chairs and the … Open Meeting Law with what I think is a need for privacy on the part of (prospective) volunteers,” said Select Board Chair Heidi Frail.
Vice Chair Levy, reading from prepared comments, argued for a high level of transparency, including informing applicants of any particular objections raised to their candidacy.
He said applicants “should be provided with a summary of the supporting reasons for the recommendation, including concerns raised and given the opportunity to address those concerns.”
His colleagues disagreed, asserting that such a summary would greatly diverge from generally accepted human resource practices where hiring managers simply inform an applicant that another candidate has been selected and rarely provide reasons for rejection.
“I think in the HR world, it’s ‘we’ve selected another candidate that more closely meets our needs’ and that’s sort of the answer everyone gets,” said member Kevin Keane.
“That is correct,” added member Bill Dermody.
Cathy Dowd added that the board should avoid adopting a policy that could discourage applicants. “There’s a lot of talent in this town and we want that on our committees,” she said.
“I have the concern that if candidates all know that it’s going to be known that they’re applying and it’s going to be known that they didn’t get it, that that could be difficult for people. It could really discourage people from applying in the first place.”
“I think we need to take another bite at the apple,” said Keane. “When we redid this back in February, I think we knew there was a problem.”
After further discussion, the Board voted to pause the appointment process and commit to revising the policy.
According to the Town Manager’s office, there are 67 current sitting committee member appointments scheduled to expire at the end of June. Of that total, 13 appointments are projected to have to be made for existing or expected vacancies.
In towns, volunteers are everywhere
As is true with all 301 municipalities in Massachusetts that operate as towns, Needham relies heavily on the work of volunteers for its governance.
Many are elected — 240 Town Meeting members, the five members of the Select Board, the seven-member School Committee, 36 other townwide officers, three constables and the Town Moderator.
The Town Clerk is the only one of the town’s more than 1,200 full-time equivalent employees who is elected, and the Select Board members are the only “volunteers” who receive a stipend — $1,800 for the Chair and $1,500 for other members.
The volunteers at issue is the cohort of more than 300 committee members who are appointed, not elected, to serve on various town committees. Those committees fall into two broad categories.
One is the standing committees often required by statute, such as the Conservation Commission or Council on Aging. The others are more project-based and have expected expiration dates, such as the recently dissolved Envision Needham working group and the Town Branding & Seal committee both of which have completed their work.
“Boards and committees are a core part of our governance structure,” says Town Manager King of the 40 or so committees currently operating.
The lion’s share of the appointments is made by the Select Board, which fills 219 seats across 38 committees.
Save as PDF