At the Tiverton Town Council meeting, councilors debated whether to allow elected members to review applications for town-administrator candidates and ultimately voted to permit council-only, redacted review of the files in randomized order with a review deadline tied to the council’s next regular meeting.

The matter matters because it pits two policy goals against each other: elected-official oversight of the chief-administrator hire and the personnel board’s historical practice of keeping non-forwarded applicant records confidential to protect applicants and to limit legal risk. The town solicitor provided a written legal opinion saying the council — as the appointing authority under the charter — may review applicant files, while also flagging potential equal-employment and confidentiality risks.

Joanna Bridal, who identified herself as vice chair of the personnel board and said she was speaking on her own behalf, urged the council to retain confidentiality for applications that were not forwarded for interviews. Bridal cited past solicitor opinions and said records of applicants who were not nominated for interviews have historically been treated as confidential to protect job seekers.

Multiple councilors pushed for greater transparency and the ability to verify the personnel board’s screening. One councilor summarized the position as “trust but verify,” arguing the council’s appointing-authority role requires access to applications so members can justify a final hire to the public. Several councilors said candidates who are not advanced are not typically told they failed to advance and urged better notification to applicants.

The town solicitor (name not given in the record) told the council he had issued a written opinion dated Dec. 18, 2024, and that opinion would be released publicly. The solicitor said the charter is silent about the personnel board’s role with respect to the town administrator and that “because you are the appointing authority, you certainly have the right to review any and all resumes you want to.” He also advised that the council could create a controlled review procedure to reduce legal exposure.

Separately, the council approved two job advertisements: an open building official position (posted with a stated starting salary of $90,000 subject to negotiation for experience) and a director of public works advertisement. Councilors discussed whether published starting salaries should be ranges to attract more candidates; administrators said the salary could be negotiated for particularly qualified finalists. Councilors made and approved motions to advertise both positions and to fund the advertisements.

After discussion and competing legal views, a councilor moved, and a second supported, a resolution to unseal the town-administrator applicant records for council use only. The motion specified that records be made available in a randomized order, redact names unless an applicant consents, and be viewable by council members in the clerk’s office during scheduled time slots. The council set a timeline for review to conclude by the January 27 council meeting. The motion carried.

The council later approved a motion to enter closed executive session under Rhode Island General Laws § 42-46-5(a)(5) to discuss the disposition of publicly held property in the Tiverton Industrial Park. Roll-call votes to enter executive session were recorded on the transcript; two councilors stated they would not attend that executive session and asked for the related matters to be heard in public.

The meeting record shows no subsequent vote to un-redact or publicly release non-selected applicant files; the records were to remain confidential to the public while available to individual councilors for review under the conditions set by the motion.