After walking back a zoning board appointment over the summer, Concord City Councilors have changed how candidates for key city board positions are vetted.
In July, the council voted to undo an approval of a nominee to serve on the zoning board that they had unanimously approved the position the month prior. The nominee presented a resume with no information after 2014 and a written endorsement from the city manager.
Several councilors said they didn’t look further into the nominee before approving her. After being asked about the nominee’s past public comments and social media posts regarding conspiracy theories, some councilors said there should be more due diligence in reviewing nominations for city boards.
The mayor formed a committee to review, which in the end suggested one small change to the requirements for those applying to serve on city boards. A report from the committee also laid out optional suggestions for councilors reviewing nominations.
Now, candidates for certain city boards must include a letter of intent in addition to the application and resume they are currently required to submit. They have the option, but are not required, to provide personal references.
The new requirement is only for first-time appointees and only those to positions on quasi-judicial boards, meaning those that have some kind of independent decision-making power. That includes the planning and zoning boards, the board of assessors and the personnel appeals board, among others.
The report also includes guidelines for councilors considering these nominees – less of a strict vetting process and more so a reminder to councilors that there are sources of public information they can review about people before voting. They need not rely only on someone’s resume and nomination.
It outlines available records about a nominee – from city meeting minutes to news coverage. Other sources, like someone’s social media accounts, are to be reviewed at councilors’ discretion. Word of mouth is an option too, but councilors are reminded to “separate facts from opinions.”
The recommendations are more limited than those proposed by some councilors, such as requiring nominees to have a public hearing or forming a committee to make nominations instead of having the mayor or city manager do so. City Council Judith Kurtz, who chaired the committee that drafted these changes, was among city leaders wary of the privacy of applicants and worried about deterring anyone from applying to a city board with too scrutinous a review process.
“Appointments should be based on qualifications, primarily one’s capacity and willingness to engage in thoughtful public service,” the report states.
Amid the controversy over the summer, city leaders differed on whether the rejected appointment was an anomaly or an indication of flaws in how the city considers nominees.
When someone wants to serve on a city committee or board, they submit an application and a resume that is then reviewed by the city manager or mayor. After considering the applicant and meeting with them, they will choose whether to formally nominate an applicant for a board position. Nominations are provided to councilors weeks before they appear on an agenda available to the public. The goal behind this shielded process is to allow councilors to raise concerns privately and avoid embarrassing a candidate. The public only sees nominations a few days before the council votes on them.
That process is unaltered.