Political Sabotage

If you had an employee who was intelligent, articulate, honest, transparent and objective, would you terminate this person? In Templeton, apparently, an employee who meets these criteria is an employee who should fear the current Board of Selectmen. With regard to the Town Coordinator position, it seems we’re looking for a less-educated candidate with a questionable job performance record, and a history of lawsuits against the town.

Why would the Board choose to terminate an employee who has only been on the job two months? In this time, Mr. Ritter has proven that he is knowledge and committed to Templeton’s best interests,

regardless of political affiliation. I’d like to know which of the aforementioned characteristics the Board finds objectionable and why? One of the phrases that the Chairman uses too frequently, in my opinion, is “moving forward.” The frequency with which Mr. Columbus uses this phrase would indicate that this is something he truly means. However, I think he has confused the word “forward” with “backward,” as others have noted.  If the new majority of the Board was unhappy with the former town counsel, they should have conducted interviews and searched for a replacement, rather than automatically backtracking to the old town counsel. If the Board determines that Mr. Ritter is not their preferred choice for Town Coordinator, and if they truly want to “go forward,” they would post the position and conduct interviews, not reinstate a controversial employee from the recent past.

In addition, I wonder how the Board could claim that Mrs. Skelton’s education or experiences are in any way superior to Mr. Ritter’s, a man with a relevant degree and actual experience working in other municipalities in the same capacity. It seems education, training, and favorable recommendations are unimportant factors in the Board’s decision-making process.

Mrs. Skelton has had the better part of a decade to prove her worth as an employee of the town. I recently served on a hiring committee, and I know we would not have looked at an applicant’s materials if they had been involved in a lawsuit against our institution. It truly calls into question the character and motivations of the individual.

And then there is the issue of cost. In addition to the likelihood of having to settle with the former town counsel, Templeton will now have to find the money to settle Mr. Ritter’s contract. Even if the town had a surplus rather than a deficit of $600,000, paying off broken contracts would still be a gross abuse of taxpayer money. In my opinion, terminating a very capable, highly qualified employee and replacing him with a controversial, less-qualified candidate is an act of political sabotage. If the new majority of the Board truly cares about this town’s future, they should realize Mr. Ritter’s strengths and understand that he is the best person to serve the town in the difficult months ahead. Please spread the word and inform others of this impending travesty.

Darren Elwell