To the Editor:
At a recent meeting, The Groton Town Council Personnel and Administration Appointments Committee approved two critical changes to the appointment and reappointment processes for commissions. These changes will be voted up or down by town councilors. While the proposed changes may be presented as mere procedural adjustments, they would materially weaken transparency, erode public trust, and risk politicizing bodies that were designed to remain independent, balanced, and driven by merit.
The first proposal is the silent non-reappointment of a commissioner through inaction. If approved, the procedure would allow the Council to effectively remove a sitting public servant by simply taking no action on his or her reappointment application, thereby keeping it off the agenda entirely. This rule is fundamentally incompatible with open, fair, and accountable government. Codifying this approach denies both the candidate and the public the basic right to a transparent vote and it is, therefore, unacceptable.
The proposal also seeks to replace the long-standing criterion of appointing “the most qualified” candidate with “the best fit”. This change is unwise; it gives way to predictable problems. Not surprisingly, there is no recognized legal, ethical, public-administration, or good-governance doctrine that endorses “best fit” as a superior or even acceptable substitute for “best qualified” in public appointments. In fact, the dominant frameworks in American law, ethics, and public-administration theory explicitly reject “best fit” because it invites bias, erodes meritocracy, and undermines public trust. “Best fit” is not a recognized legal standard because it is too vague for judicial review. Courts cannot evaluate whether a decision was fair if the standard is undefined. It also creates risks of discrimination and patronage. Best fit contradicts civil service protections in place in our country since the enactment of the Pendleton Act in 1883. This is a U.S. law that prohibited political patronage in favor of merit-based appointments and remains in effect today. Public administration doctrine also strongly rejects “best fit”. Textbooks, accreditation bodies (e.g., NASPAA), and professional guidelines reject it because it is considered non-transparent, non-replicable, highly susceptible to bias, and unethical in a public context. In corporate HR, “cultural fit,” for example, is already a controversial concept. In public governance, it is outright inappropriate. In summary, the proposed “best fit” fails every one of the above tests.
My grave concerns about the dangers of abandoning the “most qualified” in favor of “best fit” are not theoretical; they are already in full force at a national level. For example, the summary firings of thousands of the most devoted, qualified scientists, subject-matter experts, and experienced administrators across multiple agencies without due process or any justification whatsoever has already caused incalculable, perhaps irremediable harm. Paradoxically, this blunder has taken part at the hands of historically the least qualified, “best fitted” individuals appointed to lead those agencies based on “loyalty”. Considering these arguments, it is difficult to conceive that the Groton Town Council would consider adopting policies that mirror the very undemocratic tactics sowing chaos in our country. Local government could and should be an antidote to dysfunction, not an imitator of it.
For these reasons a “no” vote is amply justified.
Victor G. Villagra, MD
Noank, CT 06340