For as long as I’ve resided in Bath the governance of the City of Ships has always had its gray areas, its M.O. difficult to ascertain, its political mechanism never really clearly defined or fully understood even by those elected to rule this beloved “City” that actually is more of a charming outlying holdout of small-town Main Street America.

Despite all that, Bath has managed to do reasonably well in keeping the lights on while conducting day-to-day business that’s always maintained an attractive, even vibrant downtown. Though it has its occasional challenges to achieving citywide harmony, Bath has always found a means to implement what its citizenry as a whole desires.

By in large, the people of Bath tend to be mostly satisfied with the way of life here in their 14-square-mile blessed confinement alongside the Kennebec. What ain’t seriously broke has no pressing need of fixing. Being “careful of what you ask for, lest it come true” remains a proverb alive and well in this fair city, and for the most part it remains sage advice when one looks around at how other municipalities have fared in their so-called “development.” Bath has always done well when taking things slowly, slowly enough so that those governed can get up to participatory speed with where government is headed and thereby avoid unforeseen fast-tracked consequences of a representational democracy’s then unappreciated good intentions.

Bath has started off the new year with a most notable first outing in its publicly held City Council Meetings. Having been up to Augusta that day for an alliance of grassroots lobbying during opening day of the legislature, I forgot it was also the first Wednesday of the month and thereby had missed most of the high drama that evening when channel-surfing upon the City Council’s live television coverage.

As I tuned in, each of the members were taking turns in laying out what they’d like to achieve in the coming year. Overall, the council seemed far more engaged than usually expressed, obviously invigorated by an infusion of new blood brought about by a refreshed election process where ward offices were actually contested and competitively won. I can’t recall the council ever displaying such a talkative and freewheeling exchange. The most common takeaway was that they wished to have more engagement with their constituents, availing the public of greater interaction in their governance.

Imagine my shock when in the next day’s paper I read of how, earlier in that same meeting, the council had deemed that what had been foreseen as a necessary lengthy search process in replacing Bath’s quickly decamped city manager was to be suddenly circumvented by a closed-door decision to fill the position by a promotion within existing staff, namely the interim appointee whose acceptance of that temporary role had been publicly thanked by the Council Chair for having “bought us some time to do the search thoroughly.”

Whatever one’s opinion of the council’s action to confine their decision making in choosing Bath’s chief executive to the secrecy of “executive sessions,” it can hardy be described as a “thorough” search.

Adequate and convenient, and arguably less costly in time imposed upon the council and tax dollars spent, is a more apt description.

Regarding the cost of hiring a search committee, that could have been offset by establishing one from citizen volunteers culled from the incredibly diverse demographic makeup of Bath’s population. Recall the citizen organized pro bono TIF advisory forum that ultimately proved better counsel than the City’s expenditure of retaining top dollar tax expertise from one of Portland’s most prestigious legal firms.

Regarding timing, it isn’t has if there was any hurry to find a permanent replacement, especially when that replacement was to be the very person already in position, already in the learning curve. Why couldn’t the council’s game plan be run past the public so representative governance might have benefit of the two cents provided by those that elected them when determining the best expenditure of a six figure salary most of Bath’s residents can only dream of and are taxed dearly to provide.

In a time of profound political distrust it’s an ongoing enigma as to why Bath’s leadership continues to seemingly invite controversy by providing any semblance of being less than totally transparent in any and all aspects of their decision making.

Bath now has a new executive head. That ship has sailed and it is very likely quite seaworthy. Our new city manager clearly has the full support of the council members that unanimously elected him to a fast-tracked permanency of his intended temporary role, so confident of their decision that they committed to that arrangement for an unprecedented two-year contract.

So far, Bath’s obviously capable new de facto unelected mayor has adopted a very encouraging open door policy in taking the reins of stewardship. If an exhaustive and transparent search had been conducted he may well have proven to be the best choice for that leadership position after all other contenders fell by the wayside.

As they say, “Hard telling, not knowing.”

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.