To the editor:

At the Aug. 11 town council meeting, there were robust discussions on agenda items that I submitted.

The first item concerned the process for the proposed school bond. To be clear, I am not, was not, and have not been opposed to a school bond project. My concern is with the process.

At the April 13 council meeting, we were asked to approve a “memorialization” allowing the bond process to continue. We were specifically told by the town administrator and the council president that we (the council) were not committing to a bond amount or to any particular projects. Our town administrator stated that the council would “ultimately approve the amount that went before the voters.” Our council president similarly explained that the projects could be “peeled back” or reduced before going to the voters. When a citizen inquired as to when we would actually commit to the bond, he responded, “the end of June, early July,” because the final question had to reach the canvassing office by Aug. 1.

There was nothing unusual about those responses. What was unusual was that the process did not unfold as described. My question on Aug. 11 was simple: Why? I believe that citizens deserve to understand the process by which a significant financial commitment such as a school bond is developed, reviewed and ultimately presented to the voters. Citizens can review the April 13 meeting on YouTube to confirm this exchange.

The other two agenda items involved the appointment of a new finance director. A new finance director was selected within days of our current director’s resignation. On Aug. 4, when I requested to put a resolution on the agenda that would allow two council members to sit in on interviews, I was informed that our town administrator had already made an offer to a person and would be presenting this name to the council for approval on Aug. 11.

The Town Charter was at the forefront of citizen objections at that meeting, citing the authority of the administrator in hiring as well as the non-interference clause regarding Council members. My concern is not about who has the authority; our charter is clear on that. Rather, it’s about finding ways to make the process as thorough, transparent and confidence-building as possible.

Ironically, our outgoing finance director was selected through a process in which six people participated in reviewing 16 applicants, interviewing three, and a second interview was requested before she was offered the position. That type of collaborative process is used by many municipalities even when their charters give the chief administrative officer hiring authority. It is called collaboration, not interference.

In researching this candidate, I also found that the 2024 and 2025 Hopkinton, R.I., financial audits, under our new hire’s watch, warranted careful examination, especially in the area of material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. Our town administrator’s explanation pointed solely to understaffing. I would encourage Portsmouth residents to review these financial audits to fully understand my position and my rationale for opposing this appointment.

Portsmouth has had eight finance directors in approximately 10½ years. Why? I make no apologies for my stand on a better process when it comes to entrusting our $20 million general fund, our $79 million budget, our $82 million pension fund, and the myriad of other funds that need to be administered. This is not about personalities or politics. It’s about process, transparency, accountability and protecting the financial interests of Portsmouth taxpayers.

Mary A. McDowell

Portsmouth Town Council