Letter: Town Council Must Correct Flawed Appointment Process
Photo: picpedia.org. (CC BY-SA 3.0)/
The following letter was sent to the Amherst Town Council on October 15, 2025.
The failure of Town Manager Paul Bockleman to nominate Alex Hoar for reappointment to the Conservation Commission is not justified and this entire appointment process has been conducted very poorly. It is the job of the TSO and other Town Councilors to address these wrongs and try to make something right come out of them.
You recently received a letter from Hoar who has been serving on the Conservation Commission since 2022. He applied for reappointment before the end of his term but months later was told by the Town Manager that he would not be nominated for reappointment. He was not interviewed by the appointment committee (a requirement of the process) and the Town Manager refused to give a reason for his decisions. There are several serious problems with these actions.
The Town Manager’s nomination process is not uniform or fair to all applicants.
One of the recent appointees to the Conservation Commission submitted her CAF in early summer, received an interview not long afterward, but then heard nothing for months until she was nominated two weeks ago (she shared this information with me). Hoar submitted a CAF in June 2025, was not invited to have an interview, and was told by the Town Manager in September that he would not nominate him for reappointment. I do not know when the other new appointee or the new nominee submitted their CAFs and in what timeframe they were granted interviews, but this is something that the TSO should know. If the answer is that they were interviewed and nominated in short order, the TSO should ask why they were treated differently. The TSO should also know who else submitted a CAF, when those were received, were they interviewed, were they qualified, etc. To genuinely vet the Town Manager’s choices, the TSO should establish standards for the entire process that ensures that every applicant has the same opportunity to serve.
Refusing to provide reasons or evidence for rejecting Mr. Hoar is unacceptable.
The Town Manager has stated that he will not share the names of applicants to multiple-member bodies because they are essentially employees (a policy that is NOT required or followed by all MA municipalities). Hoar was summoned to the Town Manager’s office for a meeting that was also attended by the Director of Human Resources. Mr. Hoar asked for the Town Manager’s reasons for his decision and was told that he did not have to provide them. When Hoar asked to be provided with evidence of any issues with the performance of his duties as commissioner, the Town Manager agreed to do so at a follow-up meeting. However, the Town Manager did not provide this information at the follow-up meeting and simply restated his decision not to reappoint Hoar.
Without knowing the claims levelled against him, Hoar is bearing the burden of an anonymous and unspecified accusation and suffering damage to his reputation without any recourse. This is, at a minimum, unkind, unethical, and unprofessional.
If Hoar was an actual employee of the town and was dismissed from his post in this manner, it would probably be grounds to pursue a legal remedy. The Town Manager is essentially accusing Hoar of having done something untoward but without offering any evidence. Additionally, Hoar was never told during the three years he served that there were any concerns about his performance. He therefore had no opportunity to respond, amend his actions, or defend himself. Without knowing the claims levelled against him, Hoar is bearing the burden of an anonymous and unspecified accusation and suffering damage to his reputation without any recourse. This is, at a minimum, unkind, unethical, and unprofessional.
Negative impacts on the functioning of the Conservation Commission
Two new members have just been appointed and the Town Manager has nominated a third to replace Hoar. Another member of the commission is currently running for Town Council and if elected, will also need to be replaced. That would result in one of the most challenging and demanding volunteer bodies with important authorities having a majority of members with no experience along with another member who started serving just one year ago. Along with a great loss of experience, this drastic change in the composition of the Conservation Commission membership will also have an impact on ongoing hearings and commission business that were initiated prior to these appointments because members who have not participated from the beginning cannot vote and quorum could be impossible. Reappointing Hoar would avoid these issues. If Jason Dorney’s seat does ultimately need to be filled, the person whose nomination is before you could take that seat. Instead, the Town Manager has recommended something that will significantly deplete institutional knowledge and possibly prevent commission work from being carried out in a timely manner.
Role of the TSO in righting these wrongs.
The charge of the TSO includes performing a review and making a recommendations to the full Town Council about nominations made by the Town Manager. If that is to be meaningful in any way, the TSO must address the failings of this particular appointment and of the process itself. By not addressing this matter at its previous meeting, the TSO has allowed the Town Manager’s continued inappropriate actions to impact yet another individual: the new nominee before you who probably has no idea about any of this. It is grossly unfair to her to be unknowingly thrown into the midst of this messy situation. The Town Manager has put not only her but you in an untenable position: be complicit in the wrongful dismissal of Mr. Hoar or subject her to a failed nomination through no fault of her own.
The Town Manager owes a public apology to Hoar. He also owes the TSO, other Town Councilors, the other applicants, and the residents of Amherst an explanation and a pledge to do better. In the meantime, the TSO and Town Council should be taking corrective steps to make the process of appointing volunteers to multiple-member bodies fair and far less opaque.
Maria Kopicki
Maria Kopicki is a resident of Amherst’s District 5
At the League of Women Voters candidate forum on October 15, this topic came up – the undemocratic nature of the Town Manager committee appointment process. Interestingly, three candidates – Patrick Drumm, Amber Cano-Martin and Hala Lord – stated that they have not had success applying to serve on town manager-appointed committees. No one would know this though without their telling us, because the public can never know who or how many applied for committee positions under our current policies. And without knowing who applied, the council has nothing to compare the Manager’s recommendations to when they are asked to approve them. That is not exactly a “check” of his power.
The appointment process of both the Town Manager and the Town Council are deeply flawed and those flaws are embarrassingly evident, verging on the collusive. I view this as a single problem requiring a single solution: remove the power of appointment to volunteer boards and committees from both Town Manager and Town Council. Instead, revise the Charter to have only two elected bodies, the Town Council and the Board of Appointments. This new Board would choose members under a stated mandate to seek broad representation on volunteer boards and committees – a departure from our experience of the past six years. It would introduce a measure of checks and balances into town government. The Town Council would still appoint the Town Manager, but that would be it. The crafting of a Board of Appointments would be the responsibility of a new Charter Commission, if such was approved by a majority of voters.
Presumably a few more elected offices — like members of the school committee or the library trustees, and the OSW elector — must also remain, but an elected (at large? by district?) appointments board is worth considering.
One challenge would be protecting the privacy of applicants before they are nominated for appointment, since any body with more than one member is subject to the open meeting law: might that make residents even more “shy” to apply?
And if the town committees are creatures of the town council, what would prevent that same council from abolishing, not creating, or otherwise limiting the authority or effectiveness of — in effect, ignoring — town committees, making an appointments board ineffectual?
Rob raises important questions which would have to be addressed by a Charter Commission if one was approved by the voter. Of course if a Charter Commission were to be approved it might well make even more fundamental changes which might or might not include a Board of Appointments. My desire is to take away the power of appointments from this Council and this Town Manager since they have both shown that under the concentration of power our current Charter affords them they are not willing to consider appointments that would challenge or threaten that power.