The Board of Health on Monday voted against a suggestion from the Charter Review Committee to shift who the Health Director reports to, while agreeing to revisit a second proposal about its membership at a later date.

The discussion about the Charter Review Committee’s suggestions took place over two meetings. The board held one last Thursday that was restricted only to member and Health Department feedback. Monday’s meeting involved discussion with Charter Review chair Connor Degan and member Muriel Kramer. Degan sat in on both meetings, attending the former as a member of the public.

During its review of the town charter and discussions with key stakeholders, the committee has come up with a recommendation to consolidate director-level reporting from certain town boards and committees to the town manager. Appointment and supervision of department heads would fall under the Town Manager’s Office, while policy setting, performance reviews, evaluations and goal-setting would remain the purview of the Board of Health.

Power consolidation concerns raised

At the Thursday meeting, all Board of Health members and Health Department employees in attendance voiced opposition about changing to whom the Health Director reports.

Public health nurse Simone Carter, who said she was speaking both as a resident and a department member, characterized the Charter Review Committee’s suggestion as “shifting the power away from the community-focused board.” This, she claimed, would dilute the voice of the voters.

“I hate to see the local voice lost, especially in the times that we’re living in right now,” said Carter. She added her belief that an independent board minimizes risk to the town and promotes both public transparency and accountability. 

Chair Nasiba Mannan said she was “kind of surprised that we would have a recommendation like this, to take something from elected bodies and give it to one administrative person” in the current political climate.

“Will the town manager have the capability [to decide] what is best for the residents of this town regarding a public health matter, or an epidemic or whatever public health challenges we face?” she wondered. 

Health Director Shaun McAuliffe also spoke to these concerns, claiming that any decision-making put solely into the town manager’s hands “circumvents specific expertise in decision making that the board and director have over issues.”

McAuliffe added that he is following goals and objectives set by Town Manager Elaine Lazarus and the Select Board, and checks in with Lazarus regularly.

“There isn’t a problem to correct, and there is therefore no need for this charter revision as it pertains to the health director,” he said. McAuliffe also warned that in other Massachusetts communities where consolidation under the town manager has occurred, many have faced a “lengthy list of bad issues that have transpired.”

According to the health director, state law is designed to keep his role under the Board of Health’s oversight as to create a separation of powers.

Degan, Kramer explain reporting recommendations

During the Monday night meeting, Degan and Kramer offered additional context to the Charter Review Committee’s recommendations. Kramer explained that the suggestion came from looking at just the structure of the town’s administrative system. She also said the reporting concerns have been a longstanding concern.

“It’s been a central question since before the charter was established 20 years ago,” she said.

Added Kramer: “I do think that it’s worth considering making the charter consistent throughout and having some sort of through line of professional supervision for all professional staff.”

In hearing board members’ suggestions that retaining the current reporting structure would help shield the Health Department from the town manager, Degan clarified that whoever the town manager is still has hiring and firing powers over all other roles in the department.

“The point is, the current structure as it is now doesn’t further insulate departmental employees from the town manager,” he said.

Following the discussion, the board unanimously voted to support its current reporting system and oppose any changes.

Membership increase considered

The second of the Charter Review Committee’s recommendations for the Board of Health is an increase in its size, bumping it from three members to five.

“This was identified in the Health Department’s very own strategic plan,” said Degan. “Now we’re hearing a push against it.”

Degan claimed that adding two additional members would bring more citizens’ voices to the board. He wondered if the board’s opposition to adding more members was a “political push” affecting the strategic plan.

Vice chair Mary Jo Ondrechen explained the board’s position, saying that it has been successful in finding qualified members. However, the dissolution of the town’s caucus system and an increase in available seats means filling them with qualified candidates is harder. Furthermore, if a seat came up for election and no one ran, someone who may not be as qualified could take it with a write-in campaign.

“That sounds like politics coming into the department,” Degan commented.

Members explained they were not necessarily opposed to expanding the Board of Health, but that current circumstances both local and nationwide have influenced their position on the matter.

“We thought the residents of this town would be safer with a … three-member board right now,” said Mannan, noting all members have advanced degrees and credentials in health-related fields.

Member Malcolm Smith reiterated concerns over the board taking on members with only a “personal interest or lay interest” in public health. However, he was amenable to the idea of adding seats. 

“In an ideally organized board, five is better than three,” said Smith.

Degan rounded out the discussion by noting the concerns over power consolidation and voter disenfranchisement voiced in opposition to the previous recommendation were addressed by expanding the board’s membership.

“It feels to me like this is the way to maintain more voice but also avoid the risk of a singular bad actor taking too much authority over the board,” he said.

Members agreed to revisit the recommendation at a later date.