Town Manager & Board Responsibilities
Clear Board intent, responsible operational latitude, meaningful performance reporting, and continuous learning.
The Town Manager should be very transparent with the Board, understand its collective intent, work within that direction, and act as a fiduciary for the town’s interests and resources. Temporary confidentiality may sometimes be necessary, but its purpose and duration must be justified. The manager should have latitude to run operations within delegated authority, while bringing significant changes, risks, and decisions beyond that authority back to the Board. Unclear or conflicting direction should be clarified before acting, and individual trustee requests should be distinguished from the Board’s collective direction. A true emergency may require action when adequate direction has not been established, followed by a prompt explanation and review.
Progress and performance reports should use meaningful metrics to turn data into information—and, over time, knowledge that improves decisions. Reports should explain results, trends, risks, and what needs attention. When performance falls short, the manager should explain the cause, propose corrective action, establish a timeline, and report whether it worked. Having to wait for clarification also provides information: the Board and manager should learn from those situations and improve their direction and practices so the same uncertainty occurs less frequently.
Questions I’m Working Through
- What delegation and reporting thresholds would give the manager appropriate operational latitude while bringing consequential decisions and risks to the Board promptly?
- Which performance measures would best show whether the Board’s priorities are being achieved, explain deviations, and support corrective action and organizational learning?
More detail
Select and evaluate against Firestone’s needs
Town Manager selection and evaluation should use clear criteria tied to Firestone’s needs: growth, water, infrastructure, finances, organizational leadership, and execution. I would look for demonstrated results, sound judgment, professional neutrality, and the ability to work effectively with the full Board. Expectations should be established clearly enough that both the Board and manager understand what success requires.
Make direction and delegated authority usable
Board priorities should identify intended outcomes, tradeoffs, responsibilities, and timeframes. Delegation should make clear which decisions the manager can make and which changes, commitments, or risks require Board consideration. Individual trustee questions and requests should remain distinguishable from collective direction. When direction is unclear, clarification should help resolve the immediate issue and improve guidance for similar situations.
Use reporting to support decisions and corrective action
Useful reporting should connect the starting condition, target, actual result, trend, and explanation of significant differences. Project costs and schedules, service performance, workload, staffing, and risks should provide a coherent picture of progress. When results fall short, reports should identify the cause, proposed correction, responsible owner, timeframe, and whether the correction worked. Emerging problems should reach the Board early enough to inform a decision.
Build organizational capability and continuity
The manager should align staffing and other resources with demonstrated workload and service needs, while evaluating process improvements, training, technology, and contracting. Work spanning departments needs clear ownership and coordination. Leadership development, cross-training, succession planning, and maintained records should help critical knowledge and commitments survive staff or elected-official turnover.
Evaluate execution and the conditions supporting it
Fair accountability should examine whether the manager delivered the Board’s direction and whether priorities, resources, and authority were clear enough to execute it. The Board should learn from conflicting instructions, delayed clarification, and changing expectations as well as operational results. Evaluation should lead to corrective action and better practices, with progress reviewed against the agreed expectations.