HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20060731Town Government Study Committee
Minutes, July 31, 2006
Land Bank Office
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the thirtysecond meeting of the Town
Government Study Committee to order at 4:00 pm. Present were members Reinhard,
Gardner, Lohmann, Sevrens, Topham, and Willauer, Consultant Tom Groux, and guests
Barnes, Quigley, and Sherman.
Minutes. The minutes of July 24 were approved as submitted.
Next Meeting. Reinhard reminded members that the next meeting will be on Thursday,
August 10, at the 2 Fairgrounds Road facility [entrance off Old South Road].
Discussion with Consultant. Reinhard welcomed consultant Tom Groux. The first topic
was making the change from Town Administrator to Town Manager: what needs to
happen? Groux stated the simplest way is to amend the Charter [requiring a 2/3 vote at
Annual Town Meeting [ATM] followed by a ballot vote [requiring a majority at the next
election, about a year later]. Alternatively, an ATM vote could send the proposal to the
state legislature; the legislature would likely require a local referendum as well. Another
possibility would be for voters to petition to create a ninemember Charter Commission,
which would have to be elected and then could recommend any changes, if approved by
the State Attorney General, to the voters. Unless there is a change proposed in the method
of election or terms of the Board of Selectmen [BOS] or the Town Manager [TM], or
annual town meeting [ATM], it is not necessary to go to the State Legislature or create a
Charter Commission. Changing the title and adding some duties to the TM can be done
locally, as amendments to the Charter, not revisions. A Charter Commission, like the
Legislature, has the power to make other additional changes and revisions in the charter.
The timeline for either route would be about the same.
Groux noted that while the title of Town Manager is not specifically mentioned in state
law, a change in title to TM brings a perception of greater authority. Strengthening the
position of TM can also be done by adding additional powers for the TM. This can also
strengthen the role of the BOS as policy makers. Groux suggested giving the TM
approval authority over awarding contracts. General Law 150 governs union contracts,
which must be approved by the BOS, although the TM negotiates them; funding for them
must be approved at ATM. The TM could handle all other contracts; department heads
would award them and the TM would have responsibility to review and approve them.
Reinhard commented this was a good suggestion we had not yet considered.
Regarding town employees serving on town committees, Groux felt it was not generally
a good policy, especially within a department. It can create awkward conflicts, and denies
a seat for publicatlarge input; committee staff can provide any necessary expertise.
Reinhard asked how other towns handle the matter. Groux did not recommend putting a
general prohibition in the Charter, as it would be too inflexible for possible exceptions.
The Charter could prohibit elected BOS board members from also being town employees.
Otherwise, the BOS could adopt an appointment policy discouraging town employees
from serving on boards and committees, or it could be accomplished in a bylaw. It
would be necessary to define employee; Groux said a reasonable definition might refer to
permanent, yearround employees, or amount of compensation. It is not possible to
provide for all contingencies. A public disclosure letter, filed with the Town Clerk could
handle potential conflicts of interest.
Regarding appointment powers, Groux noted that the respective appointing authority
should review all appointments. Appointments made by the TM should not be appealable
to the BOS. Some employee contracts currently allow for appeals to the BOS, but could
be changed as the contracts come up for renewal. Generally it is good to avoid having
grievance appeals to elected boards. Where the BOS appoints representatives from
certain designated bodies, they may decline a nominee from the body, but should request
another nominee, rather than making an appointment on their own. Groux felt the TGSC's
proposed division of appointment powers, with the BOS appointing to regulatory or
political bodies, and the TM appointing to advisory bodies, made sense. Statues offer
some guidance for some committees. When new committees are established, the charge
should make clear who makes the appointments and set a sunset date; this could be
accomplished by charter amendment.
Sevrens raised the issue of whether the Planning Board and the HDC should be elected,
as now, or appointed, as they are in other towns. Groux stated that the Planning Board is
usually elected unless the town amends the charter to change to appointed; it would not
be necessary to go to the legislature to accomplish this [alternates already are appointed].
He would have to research the HDC, as it was created by special act of the legislature.
Topham asked if there were a way to end rollover appointments. Groux replied that as it
is a political issue, rather than a structure of government issue, it can't really be regulated
by the Charter. Gardner pointed out that the BOS could decide to do so.
Groux questioned some of the committees and boards: the personnel board is advisory
only and has no administrative role [it does not currently function anyway]; The BOS
serves as a Board of Public Works [BPW], but that is not necessary as there is a Director
of Public Works, overseen by the TM. Lohmann asked if the BPW does not make some
policy decisions, and Groux said the BOS would still decide policy matters, especially
where funding is involved. Although the legislature created the BPW in 1965, it could be
abolished by an amendment to the Charter, if passed. An audit committee should not be
used for a performance audit to review functions and operations; this could lead to
conflicts with the BOS and TM. It is better to charge an outside auditor who does
financial reviews to do a cyclical review and management letter citing any deficiencies,
rather than having a standing committee.
Regarding having too many articles on an ATM warrant, Groux suggested combining
budget items into one operating and one capital budget. Topham commented that people
tend to get upset and vote no when all the items are lumped together. Groux noted it is
possible to amend items on the budget article.
Regarding SchoolTown relations, Groux felt the TM should be involved in contracts,
that School Committee, Finance Committee and administration should meet and review
before contract negotiations, but that a formal structure need not be codified.
As to inhouse counsel, Groux felt a town our size needs access to a legal firm with
different specializations and an inhouse counsel would not only be hard to find, but also
subject to frequent demands for advice from town departments, causing confusion.
Gardner noted that there is a file book of past Town Counsel opinions to refer to, so as
not to repeat questions.
Groux observed that the TGSC was not ready to make any changes in County
government. Reinhard said the consensus was there is an advantage to retaining our
identity as a county.
Willauer asked about DeRensis' suggestion of an independent accountant. Groux felt
the Finance Director, although appointed by the TM, has the statutory duty and authority
to deny any bill he or she thinks inappropriate and can act as a check on the TM. He felt
the Charter should authorize the TM to approve the bills and warrants, as most towns do
[currently the BOS does on Nantucket]. The TM can and should review the bills. The
BOS could delegate this authority to the TM, but making it official in the Charter would
establish legal responsibility. The BOS should not get involved in the minutia of the bills.
Topham raised the question of Groux's bills; Reinhard noted the contract had only
recently been finalized and Groux said he would be submitting bills monthly.
Next steps: Groux will reflect back what recommendations he has heard from the TGSC,
and once confirmed, will draft language for our review. He will draft language for articles
to submit for the town meeting warrant, to implement any recommendations for
amendments to the Charter. He noted that these articles can be amended from the floor,
and so should be as clear and concrete as possible. He will also list issues not yet decided,
some of which have been raised in the minutes. Reinhard reiterated that our final report
will include three categories of recommendations: those requiring a change in the
Charter, those needing bylaws, but not Charter charges, and administrative or policy
advice only, together with the rationales for each. For our next meeting, Reinhard would
like us to complete the list of issues and refine our questions for Groux and DeRensis,
narrowing down the topics.
Other Business. Sherman noted that Reinhard has been asked to speak to the Nonvoting
Taxpayers Association about the TGSC activities.
Adjournment. At 6:05 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann