The Selectboard issued a Statement dated September 14, 2022. I saw it Sunday on the home page of the Town’s website. You can also read it here.
It does not have a title. But it addresses topics regarding workplace issues, the work of HR Happens and, new to me, the work of an independent investigator.
By my count, this is the second time within the last 12 months that the Town hired an independent investigator to look into workplace issues. Back on March 27, Valley News columnist Jim Kenyon reported on an investigation concerning the Norwich DPW. The Town has 22 full-time employees when fully staffed
Also, the Selectboard statement is short on detail, citing employee privacy. As a result, it raises more questions than it answers. See my discussion below.
To be honest, I don’t understand how employee privacy prevents Town officials from saying anything about the work environment in Norwich. Maybe I’m thick. The statement indicates the Town is taking steps to improve the workplace culture. If these are global issues, they can be explained, without revealing employee information Yes|No?
Selectboard statement by paragraph
The Town of Norwich, like everywhere else, is dealing with uncertainty and change after two years of making things work in the context of a pandemic and its aftermath. We have experienced turnover in nearly all our departments, particularly in the Public Works and the Police Departments. Staff have taken on increased workloads and have handled multiple jobs. Management has begun the work of addressing longstanding structural problems. We have had staff settle into new positions and we continue to fill and advertise vacancies. In addition to paid staff, town government in Tracy Hall operates with elected officials.
[Emphasis added]
Questions regarding paragraph 1
- Are Norwich issues only related to the pandemic?
- A new Town Manager may mean a new way of doing things. Does the management style of the new TM differ from that of the old regarding employee relations? Did the SB hire the new TM with the thought that a different approach was necessary?
- How many employees have left this year and last? Does the Town know in fact why those employees left?
- What are some examples of “longstanding structural problems”? Do these predate the pandemic?
- What specifically are the plans in place to address these longstanding structural problems?
- How are employee privacy rights impinged by discussing, in public, structural problems and remedial steps?
- Is the SB taking any steps so that it is aware of structural problems before they become “longstanding”? Was the SB too hands-off?
- Are elected officials part of the problem? Should voters be made aware?
In April the Board recognized the need to successfully integrate new town employees, develop shared understandings of leadership hierarchies, and improve the workplace culture for all staff in general. The Town hired Mark Heyman of HR Happens to interview staff and to provide the Town Manager with recommendations and informed analysis on how to strengthen and improve the Town’s ability to recruit and retain employees. No report or presentation has been offered to the Board to date.
[[Emphasis added]
Questions regarding paragraph 2
- What are the “leadership hierarchies” that the Town wants?
- Is it okay for a town employee to complain to a Selectboard member about the workplace environment?
- Does the need to “improve the workplace culture” imply problems existed? What is being done to improve the culture?
- How are employee privacy rights impinged by discussing workplace culture in public at a Selectboard meeting?
- What “recommendations and informed analysis” did HR Happens provide the Town Manager?
- How does a general discussion in public of the findings of HR Happens impinge on employee privacy rights?
- Has HR Happens completed its work?
- What does it mean that no presentation by HR Happens has been “offered” to the Board? Can the Selectboard ask for one? Will it?
In May the town’s attorneys hired an independent investigator stemming from employee conversations with HR Happens. In a confidential presentation to the Board, the investigation determined that no violations of law or town policies had occurred. Human Resource issues are subject to privacy provisions and the nature of those complaints is not something we can comment on.
[Emphasis added]
Questions regarding paragraph 3
- Is the Town trying to hide something by having its attorneys hire an independent investigator?
- When did the confidential presentation occur?
- Has the independent investigator completed its work?
- Why is the SB barred from publicly commenting in general terms about the nature of the workplace problems, if names are not mentioned?
The Selectboard’s job as it relates to personnel relations is to set expectations for the Town and review progress on achieving clearly defined goals. The Board supports the work of our town manager in his direct oversight of town staff and in managing day-to-day operations. The Board wishes to provide tangible means of support to staff and to review policies and systems, establishing expectations for successful interactions between both elected officials and paid staff.
[Emphasis added]
Questions regarding paragraph 4
- By statute the Town Manager is subject to the “direction and supervision” of the SB. Some people think the buck stops with the Selectboard. Is it the SB’s view that it is without authority to do more than “set expectations”?
- What are those “clearly defined goals” set by the Selectboard?
- Has the Selectboard articulated the expectations regarding “interactions between [Selectboard members] and paid staff”? If yes, what are they? If no, what is the approximate time-frame?
Town employees do not forfeit some right to privacy in their pursuits simply by virtue of public employment. The Selectboard typically will not comment on, confirm, or corroborate rumors of any kind. We ask for citizens to please be conscientious and avoid disseminating misinformation in their correspondence to the Board and other public forums.
[Emphasis added]
Questions regarding paragraph 5
- Is declining to address rumors of “any kind” the best policy to build trust?
- The term “misinformation” suggests a deliberate intention to deceive. Is the Selectboard suggesting that residents are regularly engaging in such behavior?
The Board moves:
To direct Mary Layton, Vice Chair, to arrange meetings with Elected Officials, including the Listers, Treasurer, and Town Clerk, to get feedback on any concerns or recommendations for greater collaboration between elected officials and paid town staff.
To hire a consultant for the purposes of collaborative team building between paid town staff and elected officials no later than March 2023, the deadline of which is reflective and dependent on current availability for this type of work.
Questions regarding paragraph 6
- Why wait until as late as March to hire a consultant?
Item#6
It appears to me the town SB sure does hire a lot of “consultants” and
authorizes “studies.”
We missed you Chris. Been too long. Also. Multiple people have requested the Town end the OML situation by coming to an amicable, balanced and fair resolution. The seem resolute in continuing this fight which why I realize you can’t speak on, does seem frustrating given the $58,000 (and counting) spent to date. Norwich is obsessed with hiring consultants, conducting studies and not responding to residents. Public comment should be re labeled “public speech time”.
A very well though out and expressed analysis, as usual. Thanks Chris.
Regarding Paragraph 4, the statement that “The Board supports the work of our town manager in his direct oversight of town staff and in managing day-to-day operations” indicates that the Select Board is subordinate to the Town Manager. That is utterly backwards, although it is consistent with the deference by Town officers of all sorts to defer to professionals, thereby vitiating the concept of citizens’ right to participate in their government, and establishing an improper authoritarian sort of government.