Councilor Ed Kennedy who has previously served on the City Council, showed some wisdom tonight regarding the resume issue and amended Councilor Elliot’s motion and the city council passed it.
On a 5-3 vote, the Council voted to approve a policy that the City Manager would forward a copy of the resume of the person being nominated to a board or commission but NOT the resume of all who applied.
However ANY City Councilor could go into the Manager’s Office and request to view all the resumes of those who applied.
What I don’t understand is Councilor Elliot. He has been on the City Council for 15 years and yet in the previous 13 NEVER presented a motion to get resumes.
Which made the following quite comical in my view. He kept repeating “how am I expected to make an informed vote on a candidate if I don’t have all the facts?”
Which may make a few people (Like me) ask the question – Is that his way of telling us in the past 13 all his votes to confirm candidates for boards and commissions have been uninformed votes?
Another thing that Councilor Elliot brought up is that he alleges Mr. Green (who was approved for the LHA Board tonight) son approached him to “lobby” for his father but felt he was a bit zealous and it was inappropriate.
What did he think would happen if councilors got all resumes in advance of an appointment and publicly on the council floor motion to kill that appointment?
The Sun would run puff pieces like they did for Mickey O’Keefe and many people would lobby councilors which is why plan E was set up the way it was to avoid this type of lobbying.
It will be interesting to see if Councilor Elliot (and by extension his buddies Lyle and the Sun Editor Mr C) move on to other issue or continue to beat this resume issue even more.
(and YES I know I am supposed to be studying, not blogging but I read while listening to the meeting and needed a break)
Good summary! I would add the point that councilor Kennedy made – that a councllor who chose to look at all resumes would then become part of the circle of confidentiality for the non-selected candidates, and respect that confidentiality outside of the review of resumes.
This was a good move on Kennedy’s part. It effectively makes clear that the role of the Council is to “confirm or deny” the appointee. That, as it could before, councilors can review the resumes of the candidates and question the Manager’s process in filling the vacancy, one on one, privately.
It awaits to be seen, that if an “informed Councilor” runs to the Blog of Record, playing candidates against each other; if that Councilor will be censured by the Council.
Some observations from tonight:
- The role of the Council is to confirm or deny
- The candidates have an “expectation of privacy.” The appointee does not.
- The Council evaluates, not the individual candidates for their suitability, but the appointee for their meeting the qualifications. Further, the Council evaluates the Manager by the performance of the appointees. That is where check and balances come into play.
- The Councilors are elected to perform duties, like taking a confirmation vote without having to test the politic winds surrounding the confirmation. The will of the people is expressed in Nov of every odd year. Not decision to decision. Lowell should shun weathervane governing, driven by anecdotal quick polls.
- Playing these matters out in the Press, turn the confirmation of one person, into a farce that looks like denying the other candidates.
Wasn’t this exactly what I was recommending last Saturday morning? Kennedy must listen to the show.
The City of Lowell and Town of Dracut would be so much better if the elected officials listened to you more Shawn. Our community is so lucky to have your keen insight and percepectives….People would have given the credit to Mr. Shaw who I thought mentioned something like that..or an old blog post where I mentioned it..glad you came forward to claim the rightful credit that is yours.
Thank you Gerry.. lol