Amherst Selectmen Explain Silence On Town Administrator, Investigation
Additional details were given on the dump truck purchase and an $11.5 million financial adjustment.
The Amherst Board of Selectmen have explained in detail this week on why they could not comment during a month-long investigation into a purchase made in October.
Selectman Brad Galinson made a public statement at Monday’s board meeting on why town officials refused to give details while investigators looked into the purchase made by the town last year. The issue attracted much attention after it was revealed that town administrator Jim O’Mara was put on paid administrative leave during this process.
“When the board of selectmen and anyone employed by the town refuses to give information to the public or the press, it is not to be sly; it is not to withhold information. This board would love to disclose anything we possibly can, but responsibility requires us to follow the law and the legal advice of our counsel.”
The investigation performed by New Hampshire law firm Rath, Young and Pignatelli, P.C. focused on the purchase of a $150,000 dump truck for the Amherst DPW during their Oct. 22 meeting, according to the meeting minutes. The department’s old truck was broken down and needed at least $30,000 worth of repairs, according to Galinson.
The board authorized the purchase of the six-wheel dump truck while the five-year lease purchase agreement was being processed. They soon learned that they could not enter the lease agreement because the town has been operating under a default budget, and the truck had already been paid for in full at that point.
Galinson said that the board unanimously voted to put O’Mara on paid administrative leave during a meeting on Dec. 5 to ensure an impartial investigation. He explained that his presence would mean that interviews and activities could not be seen as impartial.
Selectmen announced O’Mara’s return to town hall on Thursday, Jan. 17 after a unanimous decision by the board. The investigation, which focused solely on the dump truck, took longer than expected.
This investigation did not find any wrongdoing on top of the fact that the dump truck should not have been purchased, but the details will still not be released.
“By releasing them, we put the town and board at more risk than the benefit of releasing them,” said Galinson. He assured the public that the cost of the investigation will be released once the bill comes in.
The board has now implemented stricter and more formal procedures on a historically informal process to ensure that a mistake like this will never happen again. Any check will now be physically signed by the treasurer, town administrator and at least three selectmen before leaving town hall.
No further investigation is planned on these “procedural flaws and delayed internal communication protocols.”
“I am content that this issue has been examined under a microscope.” said Chairman Bruce Bowler in a press release on Thursday. “The Board has acted in a responsible manner, and we can move forward with confidence, knowing that the measures put into place last October will prevent this from happening again.”
Some have questioned whether or not $11.5 million in recent financial reconciliations had anything to do with O’Mara’s paid administrative leave. Galinson assured citizens that no money had been misplaced in any way, and that the town’s finance director has been simply logging financial journal entries for the audit.
He mentioned that the previous financial recording was “careless,” but has since been corrected, and the FY12 audit has already begun.
Many citizens have spoken out on the town’s silence regarding these issues over the past month-and-a-half. The Amherst Citizen’s Association has been leading the effort to learn more about the investigation, and were not happy with the secrecy surrounding it.
“I am very pleased to see Jim O'Mara back at work and I know that sentiment is shared by many other Amherst residents and by other members of the Amherst Citizens Association,” said ACA spokesperson Mark Vincent on Friday, after hearing the news of O’Mara’s return to town hall on Thursday. “This entire episode has cast doubt on the integrity of the management processes in place at Town Hall.”
Selectman George Infanti said that although the board could not make any comments, the citizens have a right to ask questions and scrutinize the government’s actions.
John Q
10:25 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Oh good, now we can feel much better about our town! Never mind, all is fine. Does it occur to anyone else that we have seen a steady decline in our local governing over the last couple of years? Obviously this latest debacle indicates that either the town administrator, the selectmen, or both are incapable of performing their duties with the level of competence we all expect. Doesn't it seem like a red herring to pin the accounting issues on the previous accountant? By the way, why did she leave? Whey did the previous administrator leave? Why did his assitant leave? What happened to her first replacement? The fire chief? The police chief?Mr. Tiedemann? Hmm. And who remains? Oh, that's right, the Board!!! And, BTW, where has the press been during all of this? Is anyone paying attention?
J. St. Florian
11:27 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
What we need and deserve as a community is a Woodward and Bernstein approach to the true "Chronology of Events". What is going on in this town and why have such key management figures departed. Could it be for ethical reasons? Running this town is not like playing poker Mr. O'Mara! Bluffs can only carry you so. Chairman Bowler appears to be caught in a tangled web and the Board of Selectmen think they're "Oprah" trying to defend the equivalent of "Lance Armstrong". Signed "hush papers" over a truck? I believe the secret non-public meetings started well over a year ago. Give me a break! Watergate took down Nixon. See you at town meeting and the polls members of the Board. You've got some explaining to do regarding our town chief officer's performance.
J. St. Florian
11:26 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
What we need and deserve as a community is a Woodward and Bernstein approach to the true "Chronology of Events". What is going on in this town and why have such key management figures departed. Could it be for ethical reasons? Running this town is not like playing poker Mr. O'Mara! Bluffs can only carry you so. Chairman Bowler appears to be caught in a tangled web and the Board of Selectmen think they're "Oprah" trying to defend the equivalent of "Lance Armstrong". Signed "hush papers" over a truck? I believe the secret non-public meetings started well over a year ago. Give me a break! Watergate took down Nixon. See you at town meeting and the polls members of the Board. You've got some explaining to do regarding our town chief officer's performance.
Tony Yakovakis
12:31 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The details will still not be released.
“By releasing them, we put the town and board at more risk than the benefit of releasing them,” said Galinson.
Sounds to me like like there was wrong doing. Why else would would this information put the town and Board at risk. The risk to the board is that we all find out what they have been hiding. Telling us that you won't release the details is hardly an explaination.
Ryan Ahern
1:12 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Isn't it all so interesting? Galinson admits that the only material wrongdoing was the actual purchasing of the dump truck itself.... so who is going to be held responsible for this? Someone bought it, so someone is to blame. And doesn't this contradict the press release that said no town employee did anything wrong? Still more questions than answers.
steve forte
8:21 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Why should the residents be concerned about : the risk to the board" ? What exactly is the risk?
Mike Foley
2:25 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Purchasing the truck is not the problem. This was approved by the BOS and is acceptable even in a default budget. Writing a check for the full amount and not telling anybody about it, ie. “procedural flaws and delayed internal communication protocols” is the problem.
Marilyn Peterman
4:19 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The full responsibility for any an all situations affecting ultimately are the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen. It is not reassuring that the board could probably have prevented most of the things that have occurred had they first done the proper due diligence when hiring a new Town Administrator. This is more than "procedural flaws and delayed communication protocols." John Q asks a lot of pertinent questions. The Board of Selectmen have a lot to answer for and the citizens have right to those answers.
J. St. Florian
6:51 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
True due diligence requires full disclosure. Not just a wink and a nod as it appears in this case. Most organizations don't even hire a plumber without a simple "Google" search first. "Procedural flaws and delayed communication protocols" are not new to this Administrator. Ref: Picard v. O'Mara, Hillsborough County 2009 for starters. Gutting the core values this community has treasured for 250 years, only to erode the soles of its civilian population in order to build an "Evil Empire" of dictatorship and propaganda, is something that must be surpressed at the polls. Ms. Peterman fell short when she publically called for the resignation of the town administrator. She should have included Chairman Bowler and Vice Chairman Brew in the same breath. How do we as a community teach our children to accept responsibility for their actions when our elected leaders ignore these basic principals. Restore our communities integrity and step down now ALL of you.
Mike Foley
8:20 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
J St Florian,
I checked Picard V. O'Mara as you suggested and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. . The summary judgement was that "Picards claim against Superintendent O'Mara is meritless". http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2009cv00271/34280/36/
Peter T. Hansen
4:48 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
For crying out loud was the truck a 6 wheeler or a 10 wheeler? Now I'm really confused or were there 2 trucks involved in this incident? We need a fact check.
Robert Michaelson
5:09 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I don't know where you got your information on there being a 10 wheeler, it was a six wheeler. It says so in the minutes.
-Rob
Tony Yakovakis
7:18 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The 10 wheeler was purchased in the spring and the 6 wheeler was purchased in the fall.
John D'Angelo
12:54 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
Ultimately, the Board of Selectmen is responsible for whatever lapses occur in process, procedure, or for that matter basic competence. If the dump truck purchase was an isolated incident, with no other "procedural errors" in recent years, perhaps it should be overlooked. My own experience is that there is rarely just one cockroach. What steps are being taken to identify and correct other potential "procedural" problems?
Failure to communicate with the citizens must also be the responsibility of the Selectmen. Today's Nashua Telegraph has an editorial that provides a disturbing catalog of "failures to communicate" on the part of the Board of Selectmen. Changing personnel may be part of the solution, but changing the attitude of the Board of Selectmen clearly needs to be part of it as well.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/editorials/992549-465/in-amherst-right-to-know-sort-of.html
Peter T. Hansen
2:00 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013
Why wouldn't the Telegraph and Union Leader together ask for an opinion by the AG's office?