02:28A focal point of the meeting was the memorandum of understanding between the Select Board and the Board of Health, which was originally signed on July 19. The conversation exposed a range of issues, particularly regarding adherence to procedural norms and the implications of the health agent’s job description. Concerns were raised about perceived procedural violations, with one member noting the failure to present modifications in writing to the other party, as required by the memorandum.

The discussion delved into the interpretation of the memorandum’s language, which some members argued could lead to conflicts of interest and divided loyalties among departments. A participant remarked on the potential confusion surrounding the job description, stating that the outlined procedure was not followed. The call was made to address which specific elements of the job description were viewed as conflicting with the established agreement and state law, specifically Massachusetts General Laws chapter 111.

07:05Members speculated that a disconnect might exist between the administration’s understanding of the role and that of the Board of Health. One participant suggested that more clarity on the position’s intended function could help bridge this gap, noting, “I wonder if there’s a bit of a disconnect between what perhaps administration sees as this position’s role and maybe what the Select Board and what the Board of Health see as this role.”

The dialogue also highlighted a contested clause in the memorandum, stipulating that all initiatives involving Board of Health staff require review and approval from the Board of Health. Concerns were raised that the position in question had been advertised without prior consultation with the Board of Health, complicating the reliance on another party to convey critical health issues.

The current job description under scrutiny included language suggesting a leadership role that could potentially interfere with the statutory responsibilities of the Board of Health. While administrative oversight was deemed acceptable, the potential for interference in policy development was acknowledged as a valid concern. The role’s responsibilities, such as guiding grant applications and policy development efforts, were seen as potentially encroaching on the Board of Health’s priorities and statutory duties.

Despite assurances that the role was not intended to undermine the Board of Health’s authority, concerns lingered about how the job description’s language might be interpreted. The meeting concluded with a recognition of the need for further dialogue to clarify the role’s parameters and to maintain effective communication lines between the involved parties.

The meeting also addressed the creation of the job description, which had not been adequately communicated to the Select Board and the Board of Health. A sentiment was expressed that the Select Board should have been consulted prior to finalizing the job description. One participant underscored the town administrator’s responsibility for town hall administration, noting that the Select Board does not have direct control over organizational changes. The job description’s arrival without prior discussion was flagged as concerning and indicative of communication issues.

Concerns were also raised about the health agent’s role and how the new job might impact that position. A member expressed a preference for delaying any restructuring or additional headcount until the new town administrator could evaluate the team and determine necessary changes for successful town operations. This sentiment underscored the belief that any changes should await a review by the new town administrator.

A suggestion emerged to consider removing the Board of Health from the job description to simplify oversight and coordination among other departments, such as parks and recreation and the council on aging. The possibility of adjusting the job description to avoid overlap or conflict with existing roles was introduced, with a participant expressing openness to amendments to ensure clarity and prevent authority conflicts.

The dialogue pointed to a history of communication issues, with one participant remarking on the irony of a communication program that excluded essential parties, stating, “I found it… ironic in the hypocrisy of having a program to include communication by excluding everybody you want to communicate with.” The lack of detailed information about the job was noted, with references to prior meetings where clarifications were requested but not provided.

15:58Discussion also touched on the hiring process, with references to interviews conducted for the position. The approval of the budget was seen as indirectly sanctioning organizational changes, raising questions about the Select Board’s role in decision-making processes. One participant emphasized that “the execution of it obviously could only happen… when the new fiscal year took effect,” indicating a timeline for the planned changes.