Despite concerns about conflicts of interest, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-1 on Monday, July 7, to allow First Selectman Toni Boucher to be part of a new committee examining internal financial procedures that have been conducted under her supervision.
Simultaneously, despite her relevant professional background in accounting — and her leadership in bringing the matter attention, as cited by BOS members — a frustrated Selectwoman Kim Healy is being prevented from serving on the committee.
According to Boucher, a joint committee with the BOS and Board of Finance is being created to examine issues that came to light during the last Finance Department audit — most notably a material weakness finding — as well as peripheral “process” issues that relate to some concerns highlighted during the most recent budget process.
“Their mandate will be to establish a scope, handle RFPs as necessary and seek approval for Charter funding as needed to oversee the consultants and synthesize it for both boards and the town itself,” Boucher said.
The impetus for the committee was born of BOF concerns, which were led by BOF member Sandra Arkell, who worked in tandem with Healy to shed light on some of the issues.
Boucher, however, in recommending the formation of the committee, said it should have herself and Selectman Ross Tartell as the sole BOS members.
“This is directly related to the material weakness issue from the audit report,” Healy said, “and for me, I’m just shocked that I’m being overlooked. I’m just shocked. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.”
Selectman Josh Cole initially made comments supporting Healy’s argument that it was inappropriate for Boucher to serve on the committee, but he still voted in favor of Boucher doing so.
“I want to make sure that this is done properly and addresses all the things we need to address without any appearance of, y’know — I want it to be impartial, as much as we can,” he initially said in support of Healy’s position.
“It’s kind of like being involved in a personal review of yourself,” Cole said of including Boucher on the committee. “When you have a performance review, you don’t participate … You’re reviewed by an independent person.”
“If we’re gonna populate the committee, the person in charge should not be part of that decision process in order to maintain full impartiality and independence,” Cole said.
Selectman Bas Nabulsi, who was taking part in his last BOS meeting before moving to Massachusetts, directly offered Cole support on excluding Boucher from the committee.
“Josh, if you want to override Toni’s recommendation, if you’re in that frame of mind, I’ll support you on that,” Nabulsi said.
“To me, you can’t have enough experience in drafting that RFP, you can’t have enough auditing experience,” Cole said in indication of Healy’s background.
Boucher disagreed.
“There’s also a danger of making it so intensely detailed that it becomes not necessarily workable in the operational environment that it’s in,” said Boucher, who has been consistently vocal about the overwork of Town Hall employees, often butting heads with Healy in the process.
Healy pointed out that decisions would ultimately come in the form of recommendations, which Boucher would then be expected to implement.
“That’s where the conflicts of interest come in,” Healy said. “This final document will be provided to you and you will be in charge of insuring that the most important ones, or hopefully all of them, will be enacted.”
Healy noted that, ultimately, whether or not Boucher implements any recommended changes will then be out of their hands.
“My expertise dies at the door because we can’t force any changes in Town Hall,” Healy said. “We can’t say we’ve learned this process is not being done well. We want it to be changed.”
Tartell, meanwhile, was in full support of Boucher’s involvement.
“Having Toni involved means that the organizational structure lines up with the data collection and the exercise of collecting and enacting what needs to be done,” he said.
“So, yes, conflict of interest, maybe, but it really helps to have the boss say, ‘This is the line,'” Tartell said.
Boucher said the hope was that BOF Chair Matt Raimondi would be leading the effort, and that the committee itself would play a limited role.
“The actual work has to be done by an independent outside body,” Boucher said.
For his part, Nabulsi went on to say that he felt the role of this committee felt “administrative.”
“In my judgement we don’t run into a conflict situation,” he said, joining Boucher, Cole and Tartell in support of the vote, with Healy the sole voice against it.
After the meeting, Raimondi spoke to the importance of the process review.
“We take audit findings — especially material weaknesses — very seriously,” Raimondi said. “In response, we felt it necessary to examine internal processes and determine whether additional resources are needed to prevent future issues.”
“Because the root causes may involve operational matters, which fall under the BOS’s purview, the first selectwoman and I agreed to form a joint committee,” he said.
Raimondi said the BOF has not yet formally discussed the new committee, but would be doing so at its meeting tonight, Tuesday, June 8.
BOS members have been invited to attend the meeting and discussion.
What organization includes its members in an audit committee? Come on, guys —check out ‘How to Do an Audit for Dummies’. Isn’t this a case of the fox guarding the henhouse?
I agree with the previous comment – it’s so basic, it’s a wonder it needs to be said at all. Which, in fact, it didn’t – how/why did those who initially opposed the impropriety flip? “Conflict of interest, maybe…” Good grief. Appearances, alone, should have immediately put the idea to rest if, for no other reason, than to avoid a potential loss in trust & confidence within the community. Appearances matter. Process matters. As do faith and trust. It was a surprising turn of events.