Board of Selectmen Behavior - Commentary

     For the Board of Selectmen to best represent the interests of Exeter residents it should be comprised of non-partisan individuals who strive to study the issues sufficiently to uncover the facts and render a decision/vote based on those facts and what is in the best interest of the Town.  They are elected to supervise the Town Manager and provide adequate guidance and oversight to ensure he or she is managing affairs in an ethical, equitable, cost effective and efficient manner that sees to the needs of Town residents.  It is not the Board's role to rubber stamp everything the Town Manager does or proposes to do.
     What we have seen most recently is an example of three Board members, Chartrand, Belanger and Gilman not behaving in a manner consistent with the foregoing.  It raises one's suspicions when these three consistently vote as a block, particularly when they go against strong public opinion and the prevailing facts.  Public opinion matters when it comes to how these representatives of the people act.  When they vote in support of the Town Manager at the expense of the public and in the most recent case of many non-union town employees, they need to be called to task.
     These three Board members have twice voted for a pay plan that has been shown to be badly flawed and in the final analysis is not needed.  By his own irrational vote to approve, Chartrand said any flaws can be taken care of in an appeal.  The reasonable person (including Selectwoman Surman and Selectman Clement) would insist that the plan be submitted free of obvious flaws and injustices. To put the burden on the employee to appeal is bad management.  One should also recognize that the appeal process would include the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen who have already shown by their vote that there is nothing to appeal.  Would the appeal then go to court costing taxpayers attorney fees and court costs?
     It is way past time for Chartrand, Gilman and Belanger to discontinue what appears to be collusion and show that they are sensitive to public opinion rendered at public comment and begin to act in the best interest of residents and their pocketbooks.