HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20060703Town Government Study Committee
Draft Minutes, July 3, 2006
Land Bank Office
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the twentyeighth meeting of the Town
Government Study Committee to order at 4:02 pm. Present were members Reinhard,
Gardner, Lohmann, Miller, Sevrens, Topham, and guest Barnes.
Minutes. Reinhard added the word "future" in the last sentence of the first paragraph on
page three of the June 26 minutes; the sentence now reads "A future charter review
committee, if established, could make additional suggestions." The minutes were then
approved as corrected. Reinhard commented that the minutes were helpful in reviewing
the discussions to make recommendations. He observed that the TGSC could meet at the
old Electric Company facility if parking downtown became too difficult during the
summer.
Discussion: Improving Communications. Reinhard asked what might be done to
improve communications both between the administration and the various boards and
committees, and between town employees and the public they serve. Gibson's account of
staff and department head meetings seems to adequately address communication within
the administration. Members had varying experiences in dealing with town offices, some
finding the officials they dealt with civil and helpful, some feeling that more professional
courtesy in being attentive to the public was in order. Nantucket is no longer a small town
where everyone knows everyone. Allowing for the responsibility of members of the
public to be courteous and understanding even when the rules may not permit what they
want, there was a feeling that some officials might benefit from some training in
professional demeanor; simple courtesies, like "Hello, can I help you?" addressing people
when they enter the office. Some inservice training perhaps provided by the Human
Services Officer might be a recommendation to provide a key to good service. Also, as
mentioned before, boards and commissions should make an effort to make the public
welcome at their meetings and facilitate public participation.
Recommendations. Reinhard moved to consideration of recommendations of the TGSC,
dividing them into three categories: recommendations needing a change in the charter to
implement; noncharter recommendations which might be implemented by bylaw or
warrant article; and recommendations for policies, for streamlining. He wanted to review
the topics identified in the Preliminary Report, plus some topics that had arisen since then
in order for the consultants to get under way on the charter changes, and to give them a
list of specific questions. Lohmann distributed a preliminary list of topics culled from the
report and discussions in the minutes [see attached list]. The committee proceeded to
review the list.
Town Meeting [ATM].
There was consensus to maintain the open town meeting form.
There was a desire to increase the number of signatures required to place an article on the
town warrant from 10 to 50, but also for more information from the consultants on what
other towns do in this area.
There was a feeling that there should be a recommendation [but not a charter
requirement] for the warrant to be publicized on line; it would be a costeffective way to
distribute the warrant and to enable the warrant to be updated with changes and
amendments made after publication in the papers.
Regarding televising and announcing meetings of the FinCom and the Planning Board
preparatory to ATM, it was felt that it would allow for a better informed public at ATM,
but would not be a substitute for attending and participating. There was discussion of
who should fund the televising. There was discussion of whether the primary purpose of
the meetings was for informing the public or allowing for public input. There was general
agreement to recommend that the meetings should be more accessible to the public; this
would include publishing advance agendas, microphones so attendees can hear as well as
TV audience, and adequate meeting space and equipment.
Regarding the timing of the ATM, there was discussion of changing the day or time of
year as per suggestions from the Civic League survey of a couple of years ago the
influence of the requirements of the financial schedule, ways to streamline debate on the
floor. The consensus was to ask the consultants how other towns do it; not to recommend
any specific change, but to recommend that the Board of Selectmen [BOS] consider the
possibilities.
Another question for the consultants was how to avoid oneissue bloc voting or is it a
fact of life?
Form of Government.
There was not a desire to change to a City Council/Mayor form of government at this
time. A question for the consultant is what population number triggers a required change,
and would it be tied to the regular census?
There was no desire to change the current number or form of the BOS.
There was support of a charter change to require a threeperson majority for BOS policy
decisions.
There was support for changing the title of Town Administrator to Town Manager [TM[,
and asking the consultants to draft language to accomplish this.
There was support for giving the TM additional appointment powers as indicated in the
earlier list, with the exception of the Parks and Recreation Board: Gardner observed that
the P&R board has a state role, and should remain under BOS appointment. [See attached
list]. Generally, the body, ATM, BOS, or TM, that is empowered to create a committee,
is the body empowered to disband it. A question for the consultant is if the BOS
established a committee but gives the TM appointment powers, who then has power to
disband? There was concern for work groups not being public meetings, not having
minutes. The BOS has instituted a review process for boards and commissions, but it is
not in charter or bylaws; should it be institutionalized? The feeling was to recommend a
policy of regular (cyclical?) review, but not include it in the charter.
It was decided to ask the consultants how best to insure qualifications and experience for
the TM.
Town Administration.
Regarding combining the town and school budgeting process, it was felt that the direction
of the BOS, School Committee and FinCom working together was positive, and that the
recommendation would be to continue to coordinate and collaborate, but not to
institutionalize or combine the process.
Regarding budgeting for outside consultants: the TM has power to choose consultants
and contract with them; departments needing consultants have a line in their budgets for
that; the TGSC felt that to encourage longrange planning and anticipating, they would
recommend that there should be a line for the TM to hire consultants.
The TGSC had no consensus regarding budgeting for inhouse legal counsel. A question
for our consultant is what other towns do. It was pointed out that our current Town
Counsel has a large staff and resources and specialists, that local lawyers have fewer
resources and potential conflicts, but also that there are times when it would be beneficial
for TM of BOS to have at least parttime access to immediate advice.
Centralized purchasing, it was felt, is already done where it is needed or efficient, and it
is not necessary to create another office.
Likewise, centralized planning already is in place for emergency preparedness, with a
committee, training, and communication system.
Volunteer to contact MMMA and DeRensis. Reinhard asked for help in contacting
MMMA and DeRensis, due to his limited communication ability on the middle moors.
Jane Martin will endeavor to provide help. She will try to schedule a meeting with
DeRensis during July.
Future Plans. The next meeting will be July 11, 8:00 am in the Land Bank office,
followed by July 18 at 4:00 in the Town Building. Members should continue to review
the list and any unresolved issues as a basis for further discussion.
Adjournment. At 5:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann