HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20060718Town Government Study Committee
Draft Minutes, July 18, 2006
Selectmen's Meeting Room
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the thirtieth meeting of the Town Government
Study Committee to order at 10:10 am. Present were members Reinhard, Gardner,
Lohmann, Miller, and Willauer, and guests Town Counsel Paul DeRensis and Bill
Sherman.
Minutes. The minutes were approved with a correction of a typo [employees] on page 2.
Discussion with Town Counsel DeRensis. Mr. DeRensis commented that an organizing
principle had been to consolidate as many boards and commissions as possible in the
Board of Selectmen [BOS] to avoid situations of conflict between boards, and leading to
a strong BOS. Therefore the functions of the County Commissioners, [CC] the Board of
Health, the Sewer Commission, Public Works, all are combined within the BOS.
Statewide, usually Park and Recreation is a separately elected board; here it was made
appointed by the BOS. The Charter Commission strengthened the Town Administrator,
separated the chairs of the BOS and the CC, and provided for recall. The Charter
preserved the County as a unique entity when there was a drive to eliminate county
governments.
Not all potential powers in the Charter are currently used, offering an untapped
energy source. The County can enact bylaws concerning general health and welfare,
subject only to a 2/3 veto vote of Town Meeting [ATM]. The Charter also provides for
the BOS to act quickly on real estate acquisitions, again subject to ATM veto.
Reinhard noted that our original charge had been a review of town government
with a view to strengthening the position of the Town Administrator, the perception
being that the title Town Manager is stronger. DeRensis agreed, noting that there are
three categories, Executive Secretary, Town Administrator, and Town Manager, Town
Manager being specifically referenced in the general laws.
Miller inquired what use the County might make of its powers; could the CC, for
instance, set regulations for the sewer district, subject to ATM veto? DeRensis cited
county powers enumerated in 1.3(b) (c) and (d) in the County Charter, but noted that a
formal process was recommended for changes on the sewer district. Willauer wondered if
the CC could change the noise ordinance; DeRensis said the CC could not conflict with a
current ordinance, but operate only in areas not covered. Gardner asked if the CC could
restrict cars. DeRensis said an act of the legislature would be needed to restrict cars, but
that the County could regulate bikes, traffic, kiteboards; any challenge would need a 2/3
vote of ATM. Reinhard noted there was a benefit to retaining both the County and the
Town. If the county were abolished, all its property would go to the state. Willauer raised
the question of Town or County ownership of the ponds; Reinhard noted Nantucket
claims sovereignty over the ponds. DeRensis was not prepared to address that issue.
Reinhard asked about the population trigger with respect to conflicts of interest
for municipal employees serving in government. Towns under 10,000 in population,
having a smaller pool of talent, can declare "Special Municipal Employees, [SME]"
allowing town employees to serve in town government without triggering ethics conflicts.
This is true in Nantucket for all positions except the Land Bank. In towns with
populations over 10,000, which it is anticipated that Nantucket will reach with the 2010
Federal census, tighter State restrictions kick in for people and their families working for
or contracting with the town. DeRensis suggested that state legislature might be asked to
grant an exception for Nantucket, being a small and isolated community.
The SME designation could be eliminated for the BOS, but there are severe
penalties for violations, and what constitutes a town employee would have to be defined.
Even without the SME designation, the State ethics act provides for exemptions allowing
an employee to run for office with certain restrictions, such as term limits. DeRensis
noted that there could be a requirement restricting town employees put in the charter, but
it would be counter to prior efforts to increase the pool of talented candidates. Miller felt
the talent pool is now large enough and it would be good to avoid conflicts of interest for
the BOS. Reinhard commented that it might be better to wait, since tighter restrictions
will likely take effect automatically in 2010, and inserting a restriction in the charter
might be a long and controversial process.
Regarding the timing of Town Meeting, DeRensis commented that the drawback
of Saturday meetings is that they tend to be very long and exhausting; people leave and
the quorum dissipates. ATM is concluded fast, but it is not necessarily good government.
Interest blocs still come and vote for one issue and leave. The only way to avoid that is to
take up articles by lottery, with no one knowing which ones will come up when. Several
mandatory articles are scheduled first, connected articles are grouped together, and the
main budget article is always last; the rest are by unpredictable lottery. The disadvantage
is when expert consultants have to stand by not knowing when their issue will come up.
Representative Town meeting can avoid bloc voting, but some areas are not well
represented and candidates still tend to represent single special interests. Reinhard noted
that the TGSC had already discarded representative Town Meeting as not appropriate for
Nantucket.
As for strengthening the position of Town Manager [TM], DeRensis noted that
concentrated power opens up more opportunities for mistakes. Many towns seek to limit
or remove the administrator. There are three checks to balance TM power: The power of
the BOS to appoint or remove, but removal is difficult to do; the power of the Town
Accountant to say no to expenditures [the Finance Director reports to the TM, but the
Accountant reports to the BOS]; and the Town Counsel, who can say no on procedural
matters. A good Town Accountant is hard to find. Lohmann asked abut term limits for
the TM, and periodic evaluations; also, about the role of the Audit Committee as a check;
DeRensis said the Audit committee deals with the outside auditors and reviews past
actions, whereas an accountant looks forward and must approve payments in advance.
There must be a check on use of public assets. Willauer asked whether the Town Counsel
reports to the BOS or the TM; DeRensis said ultimately to the BOS, daytoday to the
TM.
With regard to appointment powers, Reinhard asked DeRensis if he saw any
problem with giving the TM appointment power over advisory boards. DeRensis stressed
that appointments are a key power; most TMs do not make appointments. A problem is
the fractured nature of power with several elected boards and commissions. Fewer
elected boards mean fewer conflicts between them. Nantucket has elected Planning Board
and HDC. Generally it is better to have appointments made by an elected board, as more
responsive to the public and more knowledgeable of the local residents. This is especially
true when it concerns a controversial issue. However, when seeking appointments to
positions requiring professional qualifications it may be more appropriate for the TM to
make appointments. The positions of Clerk and Treasurer might more appropriately be
professional appointments. One important function of committees is as a buffer between
the BOS or TM to deflect public outrage at unpopular decisions. Not all committees are
the same; some are contested, for some it is necessary to seek people to serve, so different
procedures may be appropriate in making appointments.
Specifying too many qualifications for a TM in the Charter does not guarantee
success and may preclude someone with local knowledge. Common sense and people
skills are important, though difficult to measure and quantify. Education is not critical on
the local level; training on the job is.
With regard to inhouse counsel, DeRensis stressed the varied expertise available
with his firm to deal with complex issues. Some very large communities have inhouse
counsel, but even they farm out some work to experts. A local lawyer might not have
sufficient expertise and can make costly mistakes. Legal questions are generally referred
to him through the TM's office, but he noted he often gives informal advice to town
offices. For minor local matters that come up when he is not on site, he felt that a cell
phone sufficed for immediate answers.
Reinhard asked if there were other issues DeRensis wanted to comment on. He
mentioned licensing boards; many communities have separate licensing boards.
Although the original principle was to consolidate power in one accountable board, the
BOS, some functions are very timeconsuming and require professional and
administrative, nonpolitical work, investigating, monitoring and enforcing. Gardner
noted that much of that work is done by the staff within the administration, but with the
BOS granting licenses.
With regard to the relationship between the BOS and the NP&EDC, DeRensis
repeated his view that more centers of power lead to more fractiousness and less
coordination, and it is therefore good to eliminate separate fiefdoms. This applies also to
the Board of Health [BOH], which is a critical board and an area subject to corruption.
Gardner asked about scheduling override votes for right after ATM. DeRensis
said the BOS can call the ATM and election warrants at the same time now without
needing a Charter change. However, for operating overrides there must be a dollar figure
attached and time allowed to advertise it. Another technique is to submit a step override,
with the total broken down into a list of allocations.
Future Plans. Reinhard announced we will review the information from this session and
generate other questions. DeRensis declared his willingness to continue or return at a
later date.
Adjournment. Some members having to leave, the meeting was officially adjourned at
12:20 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann