Norfolk County advisory board to send appointing-authority response after registrar's May 21 letter, chair says

At the June 10 meeting of the North Attleboro Commission, Eric Beckerman, chair of the Norfolk County advisory board, told commissioners the advisory board voted to draft a response to a May 21 letter published by the register that prompted public concern.

Beckerman said the register's letter appeared in the Franklin Observer and the Quincy Sun and that advisory-board members convened an out-of-cycle meeting to consider whether to respond. "Once the advisory board was named as a defendant and subpoenas were sent to each of us individually, we were basically dragged into the whole issue," Beckerman said, explaining why the board chose to review and respond to the register's assertions.

The advisory board's draft response addresses individual points raised by the registrar and, according to Beckerman, is intended for the county's appointing authorities rather than for general publication. "This is not going to the public," Beckerman said. He told commissioners the working draft will be circulated to advisory-board members for comment by Friday; if those reviews are minor, he and the director will finalize the letter and reconvene the advisory board for a formal approval vote.

Vice Chair Rick Fitzpatrick, speaking in support, reported outreach to Quincy officials: he said he attempted to reach Mayor Koch, and that the visiting executive secretary "was on board 100%" with responding to the registrar's remarks. Other advisory-board participants told commissioners they have high confidence in County Director John Cronin, with one participant saying roughly "98% of the advisory board has complete faith in the director."

Commissioners asked for a clarification in the draft letter about a referenced legal-cost figure: whether the amount cited in the registrar's letter covers only the lawsuits or encompasses other routine county legal expenses (labor negotiations, contract work and similar items). Commissioners asked that the draft explicitly state the scope of any legal-cost figures before it is transmitted to appointing authorities.

Chair and commissioners voted to take the advisory-board draft "under advisement," asking for edits by Friday and aiming to complete the review and, if appropriate, affirm the letter before July 4. The chair said the advisory board will work with the county director to produce a final version for a subsequent commissioners' vote.

The advisory-board chair and vice chair emphasized the response is intended to reassure the 28 appointing authorities that funds are being managed properly and to avoid a public back-and-forth with the register. The next procedural step is the advisory-board review of edits and a subsequent commissioners' action on the finalized draft.