Former chief says hiring process was lame
Published on January 7th, 1998
STONEHAM, MA - The town's hiring practices came under fire on Tuesday night when former Fire Chief William Abbott criticized the Town Administrator's actions in the recent hiring and $79,000 salary of new Stoneham Fire Chief Lawrence Lamey.
Accusing Town Administrator Jeffrey Nutting of being "tired" of the town's fire chiefs "fighting him on every issue," Abbott suggested to the Board of Selectmen that Nutting used the recent appointment process to his own advantage when he rejected what Abbott considered qualified in-house candidates in lieu of an out-of-towner.
In his address to the Selectmen, Abbott requested a review of the Town Administrator's Act regarding the hiring of new employees and department heads. Specifically, he questioned the 7-day notice to the Board of Selectmen of an appointment made by the Town Administrator, as well as the subsequent 4-1 vote required of the Board to reject such an appointment.
Abbott has been outspoken in his opposition to last year's hiring process after the retirement of former Fire Chief William McLaughlin.
Abbott maintained that while he and other firefighters and residents attempted to voice their concerns to the Board last fall over Nutting's appointment, they were given only limited time to do so at a brief Selectmen meeting minutes before the October Town Meeting.
"Even in this restrictive environment," stated Abbott, a majority of the Board voted to reject Nutting's appointment by a 3-2 vote. This was not good enough, however, since a special act, that was voted on three years ago by Town Meeting, calls for a 4-1 vote by the Board of Selectmen to reject any Town Administrator appointment.
Abbott stated that the original salary advertised for the position "was so low, most Stoneham fire captains would be foolish" to accept it with a "ten-fold" increase in responsibility. This, he charged, was an attempt on Nutting's part to discourage any Stoneham Fire Department applicants from considering the position.
He further criticized the process of the assessment center testing used to evaluate candidates for the position. He charged that it failed to solicit input regarding interview questions from three former fire chiefs from Stoneham and also failed to ask any questions regarding the town of Stoneham or the Stoneham Fire Department.
The outcome of this assessment center testing resulted in two top candidates, said Abbott, both of whom "looked good on television." According to Abbott, Lamey was the top choice, followed by the second choice of a lawyer who had not been an acting firefighter in 20 years.
With the appointment made, and Nutting's position clear that he would not reconsider his choice, Abbott stated that he was "going to fade away," from the issue until he recently learned that the new fire chief was earning an annual salary of $79,500, more than any other fire chief has earned in Stoneham and $7,000 more than former Fire Chief William McLaughlin was making at the time of his retirement after three years experience in the position.
He charged that for this money, the Town Administrator was getting a "very loyal fire chief with no allegiance to the firefighters, the Selectman, or the townspeople."
"What am I, as a taxpayer, getting for $79,500?" Abbott demanded.
According to Abbott, while he enjoyed meeting Lamey recently, he suggested that Lamey's position, since 1995, as Deputy Chief in Norton, a rural town of 11,000 people, was more equivalent to a fire captain's rank in a more populated town like Stoneham.
Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello, who voted for rejecting Nutting's appointment in October, agreed with Abbott's view of the process and suggested that a petition be submitted at Town Meeting that would call for changing the Town Administrator's Act back to a requirement of a 3-2 simple majority for rejecting appointments.
He stated that the town should be run less like a "dictatorship" and that the Board of Selectmen should have more decision making power.
"If we can fire you by three votes, why can't we reject your appointments by three votes?" Ciccarello asked Nutting.
Nutting stated that the special act calling for the 4-1 rejection vote requirement could be considered as the "constitution" of the community and reiterated that Town Meeting has the power to change it.
In addition, he stated that despite the "misinformation" and "innuendo" made of the appointment process, where "people made assumptions of my agenda which are incorrect," he advised that the Board was kept abreast of the hiring process with copies of reports and assessment center videos of the candidates that he supplied to them.
Nutting also stated that he invited board members to formally meet the candidates, although none of them did so.
Selectmen Chairman Albert Conti stated that he did not consider a petition at Town Meeting to be the best avenue for changing the process at this point, but suggested instead that an ad hoc committee of the board research the process to determine what improvements are necessary.
"I don't think the 4-1 vote is bad," stated Conti, suggesting instead that they concentrate on the Board putting more pressure on the Town Administrator.
Nutting cautioned that changing the procedure would not solve all the problems and would not "guarantee you getting the people that you want."
Further, he asserted that despite Board rejections, "I'm not going to appoint anyone I don't think is qualified."
In regard to the 7-day notification time frame to the Board, Conti directed Nutting to make sure that a Board meeting was scheduled before the expiration date of any appointment made so that board discussion of the appointment could be assured.
Selectmen Ciccarello and Anthony Kennedy were charged with working on researching and developing necessary change to the appointment process with Nutting in order to assure fairness and attempt to avoid the confusion and ill feelings this last appointment generated.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!