Timothy Belknap is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing District 9.
BRATTLEBORO-To the Brattleboro Human Services Committee:
During your June 10 meeting, it was repeatedly stated that the body does not "make policy."
I respectfully disagree.
The decision-making process regarding the allocation of taxpayer-funded donations is, by definition, a form of policy making. These choices shape outcomes, reflect priorities, and embody values - fundamental elements of public policy.
It is imperative that we address several growing concerns, particularly around transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the decision-making process.
In that spirit, I strongly recommend the group develop and adopt a formal recusal policy that aligns with the published code of ethics. This policy should provide clear guidance on key issues such as:
• Whether individuals who recuse themselves must physically leave the room during interviews or deliberations.
• Whether recusal applies to individuals with prior associations or personal connections to an applicant organization.
Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on whether a government-affiliated body may conduct closed-door sessions when making decisions about the distribution of public funds. When public trust is at stake, transparency must be a guiding principle. Opening the process to public scrutiny serves the group's long-term credibility - not to mention the Vermont sunshine laws applying to government-affiliated bodies.
* * *
We are hearing increasing concerns about a lack of transparency. To address these concerns proactively, I suggest the group commit to:
• Publishing outcome and efficacy data from funded organizations.
• Sharing the tools and criteria used to evaluate applications.
• Confirming that all recipient organizations are properly registered and have valid tax identification numbers,
• Preventing even the appearance of conflicts of interest among decision-makers.
For example, consider a grant application from a local homeless shelter. A thorough and transparent review includes:
• Outcome measures: Changes in housing status, employment, health outcomes, and substance-abuse treatment referrals and acceptance rates. Most shelters already collect this data as part of their fundraising and reporting efforts. This committee should insist on the same.
• Financial details: Number of full-time and part-time staff, lack of federal/state/insurance funding, and any existing budget deficits (e.g., running a deficit).
• Verification: Confirmation that the organization is registered with the IRS and has a verified tax ID number.
• Conflict of interest disclosure: Clearly stating, for example, that only one committee member, [Name], has any affiliation with the organization and has formally recused themselves from both interviews and deliberations. As all proceedings are conducted openly, this recusal would be a matter of public record and available for taxpayer review.
* * *
Ultimately, the guiding question for each funding decision should be: Are these taxpayer dollars making Brattleboro a better place to live?
I look forward to continuing this important conversation and working together to uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and public trust.
This Voices Open Letter was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].