HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20060626Town Government Study Committee
Draft Minutes, June 26, 2006
Land Bank Office
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the twentyseventh meeting of the Town
Government Study Committee to order at 4:05 pm. Present were members Reinhard,
Gardner, Lohmann, Miller, and Sevrens, and guest Bill Sherman.
Minutes. The minutes were approved with appreciation. Sevrens added to her previous
comment regarding a policy on town employees serving on boards and committees, that a
strong uniform town policy would be a help to department heads in dealing with the
issue.
Reinhard noted that the TGSC, though appointed by the Board of Selectmen [BOS], is
responsible to the Town Meeting [ATM] and to the constituencies it represents.
Reinhard announced that the July 18 scheduled meeting will be changed to the
Selectmen's conference room; all others will be as usual in the Land Bank meeting room.
Discussion and consideration of recommendations.
Reinhard asked for recommendations to streamline Town Meeting. It was felt that
communication and education of the voters was important. Gardner commented that the
Nantucket Civic League did a good job providing information with the Meet the Articles
meetings. Also, that he liked having the election after ATM, giving sitting BOS members
a chance to follow through on their projects and candidates to state their positions at
ATM. Miller felt that the newspapers also gave good information, but there are always
some people who don't "do their homework." Reinhard noted that the Charter requires the
warrant to be published in the newspaper; should there be any other requirement?
With regard to other informational meetings prior to ATM, such as the Finance
Committee and the Planning Board, Sevrens noted that there was low attendance; it is
difficult to hear what is going on. Gardner commented that board members tend to talk to
each other, not the public. Miller suggested microphones be used, as with the School
Committee. Lohmann urged television coverage of more meetings. Gardner felt that the
school cafeteria is too big and noisy, new meeting facilities at 2 Fairgrounds would be an
improvement. Lohmann commented that the new facilities would be an opportunity to
provide good microphones, televising ability, even overhead projection so the public
could see the maps and plans being discussed. Failing that, there should at least be a copy
of maps or plans set out for public view. Also, newspapers should be encouraged to print
agendas of the meetings in advance. Miller and Gardner urged that there be opportunity
for public input or comment.
Generally it was felt that becoming informed prior to ATM was important and should be
made easier; televising early informational meetings would be one method. A "blog" on
the issues, as with "Yack," would be good; should there be an official "moderator" for it?
Websites with opportunity for both presenting information and receiving comment, as is
done with the Master Plan, the Harbor Plan and TGSC, offers good promise. While the
point of an open ATM is to allow people to speak their mind, the moderator can limit
repetitive debate. If many are well informed, they will be less tolerant of uninformed
speeches and the meeting will move along better.
Committee Appointment Powers. Reinhard raised the question of the creation and
dissolution of committees. Some committees are created by ATM, Charter, or Bylaw,
some by the BOS, some by the Town Manager [TM]. TGSC recommendation has been to
transfer more appointment powers to the TM. Generally, whichever entity creates the
committee should be the one empowered to disband it. Should there be a process of
appeal or hearing regarding abolishing a committee? Miller felt a committee's mission
should indicate the duration of its term, Sevrens felt it sad that there were not enough
applicants for some committees; perhaps having the TM make appointments might allow
for tapping a larger pool of qualified applicants. We should ask our consultant what other
towns do, and what the implications are of our proposed changes in appointment powers.
Unified Town/County government structure. Reinhard brought up the suggestion of
consultant Troy to combine Town and County government functions. A "pro" would be
to streamline local governance. A "con" would be to relinquish certain powers, such as
taking of roads, and influence as one of 17 counties in the state, instead of one of 351
towns. Sevrens noted that Troy had presented the positive aspects of this new idea; she
would like to hear of any negatives. What would happen to deed excise monies? This
would be a question for Town Counsel DeRensis when we meet with him. Sherman
noted that the Charter was designed to address the concern about duplication of functions,
but maintained the County to retain control should the State take over counties. He
questioned what would be gained by transferring all county functions to the town, and
noted the treasured long history of the town [since 1671] and County [1695].
Strengthening the County would weaken ATM. It would be nice if the deed excise tax
could go into the county coffers [Nantucket does not have a jail facility to maintain, but
must pay for housing prisoners elsewhere] but that would require legislative approval
and be difficult to achieve. Reinhard noted that the Charter is designed to mesh the town
and county governments and it has worked well; it would be hard to promote a change.
He felt we could ask for more information, but are not yet ready to make any
recommendation on this proposal.
Separate the Board of Health [BOH], other boards, from the BOS?Gardner noted
the BOH could be improved by having someone with expertise. Sevrens commented that
they deal mostly with septic issues; Gardner mentioned also restaurants and
overcrowding. It is too much for the staff to handle, especially in the summer. Miller
mentioned also disaster preparation, as for the avian flu. Sherman wondered whether the
recently established Sewer Committee might be a model for the BOS to tap talent and
expertise among the citizenry. The BOH has great power and is politically fraught;
members would need both technical knowledge and political sensitivity. There were
proposals that the TGCS make a recommendation to the BOS that they create a Health
Advisory Committee. Another possibility would be to propose a town warrant article to
create such a committee allowing ATM input. Gardner commented that past sewer and
solid waste committees spent long hours working and coming up with recommendations.
This BOS has long meetings because they want to control things. Reinhard summed up
that there seemed to be consensus to keep the current makeup of most boards, but look
further into the BOH.
Defining Boards and Committees. Gardner observed that the BOS had just reviewed
the various committees; Reinhard added they had published policies for review and for
making appointments. Miller felt there should be regular reviews, and mission statements
for each committee. Lohmann commented that the Provincetown Charter details the
responsibilities of some committees. However, the consensus was that the TGSC should
not define the roles of the committees. Sherman suggested a "welcome package" for
committee members, with information on records, history, mission, in addition to the
open meeting information and guidelines currently given out. Gardner proposed asking
Groux for input. Reinhard said the TGSC could make nonbinding recommendations to
the TM for the process of making appointments. Miller felt the TGSC should not define
the process, but urge that the TM have a clear public policy for the new appointment
powers. Appointing a greater variety of people would lead to a stronger system. Sevrens
observed that the TGSC could make recommendations other than charter changes at
ATM. Reinhard said he envisioned three types of recommendations in the final report:
recommendations on the charter, noncharter recommendations [bylaws], and other
general recommendations on various issues. A charter review committee, if established,
could make additional suggestions.
Audit Committee. Sherman suggested that, in addition to a financial audit committee,
there be a functional audit review to assess performance of various officers and
departments; this is too much for the TM to oversee alone. Miller suggested it should be
someone outside town government. The topic to be addressed at a later meeting.
Consultant. Reinhard said the consultants have been reviewing the minutes and
preparing comments. Lohmann wondered if some of the straightforward questions might
be answered by email or letter, with a list of more complex issues needing discussion
compiled for a meeting. A date has not yet been set to meet with DeRensis.
Adjournment was at 5:45
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann