Review Committee Struggles To Agree On Process For Appointing FinCom

Evaluating suggestions to change the process for choosing the Finance Committee, at their Dec. 2 meeting the Charter Review Committee considered whether the FinCom should be elected or appointed, and if appointed, the process for appointment.

While debating the appropriate selection process, the Charter Review Committee also grappled with implications of the Finance Committee's expanded role in town government. Traditionally, the Finance Committee has been an advisory and watchdog body. Under changes already implemented for this year's budget - changes also recommended for inclusion in the Charter - the Finance Committee is now substantially involved in establishing budgetary policy.

Confusion about the FinCom's new responsibilities was spotlighted in an exchange between committee member Michael McCoy and chairman Mike Manugian. Member McCoy said that the FinCom was an advisory committee, not a policy committee, adding, "They have no decision-making power of their own."

Chariman Manugian disagreed, "They [The FinCom] are going to set budget goals. This year the Finance Committee has set budget goals for the Town Manager, so they are more than an advisory committee as of this year. This is in the Charter."

Finance Committee chairman Gary Greene supported McCoy's interpretation saying, "The Finance Committee did not set those goals. It was a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee." He continued, "When it comes to these policy-making areas, that's the realm of an elected body." He said that the FinCom participated in the meeting but that goals were the Selectmen's, not the FinCom's.

Chairman Mike Manugian replied, "To my mind, the point is still the same. You are participating in policy making, so it [the FinCom] is more than just an advisory board."

This exchange of views was preceded by deliberations on whether the Finance Committee should be elected. Member Robert Collins voiced the opinion of the majority saying that generally, it's preferable to choose people to serve by election, but that "elections don't necessarily ensure that you will get people that are conversant with the issues they are going to be dealing with."

Bud Robertson agreed that elections could lead to unqualified people serving on the FinCom, explaining that the FinCom's current practice is to vett applicants for financial skills before recommending them for appointment by Selectmen. He said, 'That's an important part of the process that an election does not allow."

Arguing for an elected Finance Committee, member Jane Allen said that she grew up in Connecticut with an elected FinCom, saying that an elected Finance Committee had a much stronger 'presence' in town and, in consequence, was taken more seriously. She said that Town Meeting voters take the opinions of an elected board more seriously. She added, "I just think it's a much better way to go."

Member John Giger agreed with other members opposed to electing the Finance Committee, saying, "I would be in favor of a process that gave us the highest probabilities of getting highly qualified people with knowledge of finances onto the committee."

Selectman Jack Petropoulos was recognized and argued that an appointed committee has a tendency for the committee to bring in other people like themselves. He said that this practice would make it harder for the community to inject alternative viewpoints. Advocating for an elective process, he said, "An elected process would allow the community to express its voice, making a change in the FinCom that represents a change in perspective."

On a motion by member Stuart Schulman, the Review Committee voted to reject electing FinCom members and went on to consider how they should be appointed.

Next the committee considered the appointment process. Currently, Selectmen appoint the Finance Committee. Attorney Robert Collins said felt there was 'nothing broken' with the existing process but acknowledged a perception that the 'process is too close.' He said, therefore, that some change was needed. He suggested that the Moderator appoint three members of the Committee and Selectmen appoint four. A motion was made to this effect and was rejected.

Next, the committee reviewed the Finance committee's suggestion to have a three-board committee consisting of the chairman of the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committes and the Moderator make all seven appointments to the Fincom. The Fincom's proposal suggested that they vet all candidates before being considered by the three-board committee.

Member Jane Allen was adamantly opposed to giving the Finance Committee power to both vet and then participate in choosing candidates. Consequently, the Review Committee omitted the vetting requirement and voted to recommend appointing Fincom members by the three-board committee without a formal vetting requirement.

The Charter Review Committee voted 4-3, with members Schulman, Manugian and Collins opposed, to recommend that a three-board committee appoint Fincom members. The text of their approved motion read, "There shall be a Finance committee consisting of seven voters of the town appointed by a three-person committee consisting of the Chairperson of the Board of Selectmen, The Chairperson of Finance Committee and the Town Moderator."