GilfordGrok

Former Selectboard Chair Boucher (GG2 file photo)

There can only be one explanation for the recent behavior of former Selectman Boucher. My problem is that there are two apparent choices. Either she is woefully ignorant of the Right-to-Know laws, or is knowingly looking to bait our present selectmen into committing violations of them. If you are like me, the quandary is that when considering who we're talking about here, both ignorance and deceit are equally believable. 

Let me explain.

The Right-to-Know (RTK) law bars a quorum of Selectmen, in our case, two, from conducting public business outside of the confines of a properly noticed public meeting. Recalling that both her and the former Town Administrator imply without specifics that the other two Selectmen were somehow  violating the RTK, you can watch the video of the March 12 meeting where Selectman Boucher admonishes Selectman Grant for not calling her about this beforehand. HELLO? Attention Ms. Boucher: This would have violated the RTK. Reasonable people might conclude that if the law was in fact violated, perhaps it was Selectman Boucher leading the way.

Now, according to letters in the papers, we find that former Selectman Boucher, citing her years of "experience" (some might question whether "led down the primrose path" counts as such, but I digress...), is leading a petition drive that asks demands

"the selectmen give answers on why Evans Juris was fired with no explanation."

Silly Ms. Boucher. She knows that first of all, their counsul has advised them NOT to comment. This is normal for these sorts of things. Secondly, much like it is out here in the "real world," employers do NOT blab about the reasons an employee has been dismissed. This isn't legal, as far as I know. Why, businesses know that when it comes to giving information about a former employee to a prospective employer, you NEVER offer negative information, lest you get in trouble. In addition to those constraints, the selectmen face the added conditions of RTK requirements governing their every move. The very act of publicly stating a reason could violate that  law. Again I ask, is former Selectman Boucher hopelessly clueless when it comes to this, or is she simply seeking to lay out a trap for the present board?

Ms. Boucher's letter, in addition to "demands" for "answers" the Selectmen cannot legally give, again follows on a familiar theme as noted above when she writes

"Both Selectman Grant and Selectman Benavides should have spoken to me before hand to get my point of view as to how this could all have been dealt with professionally and not in public like it was done.

Once again, former Selectman Boucher advocates for the violation of the RTK law with this statement. Twice, as a matter of fact. First by looking to communicate outside the confines of a public meeting, and again by suggesting it not be done in public, despite the request of the employee in question, as was his right. Again I ask-- Is this ignorance, or deceit?

Boucher's letter closes by lamenting the "sad situation for our town to be going through." I actually agree with her on this one. Unfortunately, it is the continued actions that SHE has engaged upon that are causing this to drag on. While she might claim to want what's best for the town, her actions are in all actuality what's best for one person and one person only: the terminated Town Administrator. If former Selectman Boucher actually wanted what's best for our town, the she would simply

and just go away. Enough, already!

.