Wellington trustees refine draft bylaws, keep mayoral proclamation authority and clarify confidentiality; remove standalone whistleblower section

WELLINGTON — Trustees at a Wellington Board of Trustees work session reviewed a revised draft of the board’s bylaws on Oct. 5, discussing three substantive changes: proclamations, alternate confidentiality language, and a proposed whistleblower provision. Dan, a staff presenter, said the packet contains a new redline with three primary changes: a narrowed proclamations provision, two alternate confidentiality sections (labeled alternate A and alternate B), and a proposed whistleblower item that trustees debated and ultimately agreed not to include as a standalone section.

Trustees focused first on proclamations, agreeing to restore a mayoral-proclamation model but asking for an annual board-approved list to reduce ad hoc proclamations. Dan said the draft returns proclamations to mayoral proclamations “which historically is what the town has done.” Several trustees pressed for guardrails: one trustee proposed that the board approve a standing list of proclamations at the board’s organizational meeting in January so the mayor would have a year‑long, board‑approved set of proclamations while retaining discretion for additional requests.

The draft contained two alternatives for confidentiality provisions. Dan described alternate A as the language that had been in earlier packets and alternate B as a clearer, more bulleted version drafted with Trustee Moyer; alternate B also includes a section listing potential ramifications for breach. Trustees favored keeping the list of potential consequences but asked that it be written as nonexclusive — “the following, but not limited to” — so the list would not preclude other remedies the board already has under town code or state law. Dan described alternate B as “breaking things out a little more, a little more bulleted, a little more clear.”

Trustees debated whether the bylaws should spell out specific remedial steps (for example, requiring ethics training for a first breach) or leave discipline to the board’s existing authority. Several trustees said a formal censure is a board-level statement of disapproval and removal proceedings remain governed by state statute and town code; one trustee recommended listing examples of possible remedies but not making the list exclusive. Dan noted that naming every possible consequence risks narrowing the board’s options and said he would revise the draft so the consequences list is explicitly nonexclusive.

A separate proposed section on whistleblower protections produced the most discussion. Dan said he had looked for municipal parallels and cited state provisions but noted that the employee-focused statutory protections Dan found do not generally apply to elected officials. Multiple trustees agreed that formal whistleblower protections are employment protections and therefore inappropriate to include as a standalone section in trustee bylaws. Several trustees proposed folding the core intent — that a trustee acting in good faith may report violations of law, gross mismanagement, misuse of public funds, fraud, abuse of authority, or substantial danger to public health and safety — into the confidentiality section rather than creating a separate whistleblower article. Others said state statute already provides protections and that duplicating those provisions in bylaws could create confusion.

On the outcome, the board asked Dan to make the nonexclusive-consequences change to the confidentiality alternate and to move the whistleblower intent language into the confidentiality provision (or remove it if redundant with state law) and to return a revised draft for formal consideration. There was no formal recorded motion or roll-call vote on ordinances or bylaws during the work session; trustees expressed direction to staff to bring the revised draft to a future public meeting for adoption.

The discussion included repeated reminders from trustees that disciplinary steps ultimately would be subject to board vote and, where applicable, state statutory processes for removal or formal investigation. Trustees also reiterated that, where an independent ethics review or state oversight agency is appropriate, the board can refer matters to those bodies.

What happens next: Dan will revise the draft bylaws to (1) include a board‑approved annual proclamations list as an option, (2) present alternate B confidentiality language with the consequences list labeled nonexclusive, and (3) either fold the proposed whistleblower language into the confidentiality section or remove it if redundant with state statute. The revised bylaws will be brought back to the board for a public vote on adoption.