Robert Coulter, Tiverton Town Council President
When it comes to board appointments in Tiverton, longstanding Town Council policy is clear. Whenever there are more applicants than open seats, two things apply. First, the applicants must be interviewed by the council. Second, the council does not vote until the meeting after all interviews are done. This is only fair to the applicants, and also gives the council and the public time for consideration.
For the pending open seat on the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review, there are two applicants: an incumbent whose term is ending and seeks re-appointment, and a new applicant looking to join the board. Both applicants want a primary seat (not an alternate seat).
When the incumbent (who happens to be the chair) did not attend interviews on August 26th, as a courtesy we held the matter open until our next regular meeting so she could attend on September 9th. Now that interviews are all done, the council will vote at its next meeting on September 23rd.
This written policy was formally adopted in 2012 and has been used by five councils in a row, including this one which approved the current version unanimously. Incumbents and new applicants are treated alike, and this too is only fair.
The Daily News article on this routine matter completely misses this point, despite my explaining the policy a half-dozen times at the meeting. But it’s a perfect example of how political gamesmanship, and the loudest voices in the room, can lead well-meaning, hardworking newsreporters to spin even the most routine business into “news” which, though astray from reality, looks great for those with agendas. In this case, it’s the personal agenda of a recall petitioner suing Tiverton for $4M, and the political agenda of his allies piggybacking on the opportunity.
Thus, another night of the council’s good work is ignored, while nothing more than a routine, courteous application of a longstanding, fair policy is presented as drama or scandal. Let’s hope readers of the Daily News remember this going forward, because inaccurate reports like this are not good for anyone other than a select few.