The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
To the editor:
Several board and committee appointments made by the Select Board (SB) have garnered attention recently, with the Board of Health (BoH) included. The SB (3-2) took the perplexing position of overruling recommendations by the Chair and Vice Chair of the BoH regarding which applicant should be given voting member status. It’s important to understand how these recommendations came to be.
Recently, the Reading BoH, joined by a Reading Council on Aging representative and Directors of Public Health, Health Services at RPS, and the Reading Coalition for Prevention and Support, conducted a Community Health Needs Assessment. A Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) was developed using the findings from this assessment. The BoH held a public hearing to obtain feedback on this plan from members of the community 4 weeks ago. Three members of the community attended and spoke. None were members of the Select Board.
Six goals across three priority areas were identified in the CHIP. Among these are:
- Support linkages to mental health and behavioral health treatment services for those in need of support.
- Build resilience among youth and young adults to foster wellbeing and belonging.
Based on these goals, a recommendation for a board member with professional experience in social work and mental health in the pediatric population is logical. This should not be viewed as dismissive of the other applicant. The BoH Chair and Vice Chair simply recommended the applicant most closely aligned with the board’s stated goals. Based on those goals, I’d have agreed. I am disappointed the majority of the Select Board was dismissive of their input and demonstrated little effort to understand its genesis.
Mercifully, in this instance, despite knowledge and process faults by the SB, bothapplicants have relevant professional backgrounds along with an understanding of the fundamentals of public health, and their participation will be valuable. I hope the community appreciates and respects the knowledge and expertise of our BoH members, as I do. I remain optimistic that our BoH will continue its great work.
I also hope the SB will take the opportunity to educate themselves about public health responsibilities and requirements as it’s become clear to me through the discourse of the last week that they and many others don’t understand the scope of the role of the BoH in Reading. Areas of concern include, but are not limited to, environmental health, food safety, housing, chronic disease prevention, emergency preparedness, and access to health and mental health services. Due to the broadness of the field, it is imperative to have skilled and educated staff and officials. Consequently, the state recently drafted additional recommendations for workforce standards and capabilities beyond what is included in the MA General Laws. In Reading, we have been fortunate to have a health director and majority of board members who have attained the necessary education (e.g., MPH, MD, MSW, RN, etc.), and/or accumulated relevant work experience, and actively pursued continuing education via the MA DPH and other sources to remain aware of requirements and changes in regulations.
I would like to see the Select Board take appropriate action in the future to condition appointments to the BoH on meeting the state workforce requirements and recommendations (outlined here) to ensure all our members have a base level education on local public health practice.
For more information on national and state guidelines:
Foundational Public Health Services
Blueprint for Public Health Excellence
Respectfully,
Emmy Dove
Charles St
