HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20060508Town Government Study Committee
Minutes, May 8, 2006
Land Bank Office
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the twenty-first meeting of the Town
Government Study Committee to order at 4:05 pm. Present were members Reinhard,
Gardner, Lohmann, Sevrens, Topham, and Willauer; consultants Tom Groux and Bob
Troy, and guests Barnes, Glowacki, and Kopko.
Minutes. The minutes of May 2 were approved as submitted.
Discussion with Consultants. Reinhard introduced Tom Groux and Bob Troy of Groux
and Associates and they reviewed a summary of their backgrounds and experience.
The first question addressed was, if Nantucket decided to move from Town
Administrator [TA] to Town Manager [TM], what steps would be necessary; would a
Charter Commission need to be established? The consultants affirmed that it could be
accomplished locally, with a warrant article at Town Meeting [ATM], followed by a
ballot election.
Changes which would require a Charter Commission or Special Act of the
legislature would include changes in the composition of the Board of Selectmen [BOS],
in the method of election, or in the format of the ATM. Mr. Troy noted six areas which
are reserved for State purview: elections, taxes, borrowing, disposal of parkland, private
civil law relationships, and felonies. Other areas are within the power of local
communities to determine when they have a Charter. Changes can be made by a 2/3 vote
at ATM and majority in the ballot. Sometimes, for political reasons, rather than legal
necessity, local communities do go to the legislature for a Special Act; however, even in
those cases, the legislature desires evidence of local support.
Mr. Groux raised the question of whether Nantucket might want to consider
combining the functions of the Town and County since in Nantucket's unique case
they are identical. Currently there are separate charters, and while there are overlapping
functions, there could exist separate, different administrations. There is some overlapping
of bureaucracy. Any reorganization of the County would require legislative approval. The
State has supported abolishing County governments, and has, in effect, taken over many
county agencies.
Questions were raise about the effect of abolishing County Government on excise
taxes, acquisition of property, elected officials. What County functions would not be
possible under the new "Unified Government" [Unigov] entity?
Regarding taxes: the State would continue to control the revenue stream, but
direct tax revenue to the new entity.
Regarding property acquisition: currently the County Commissioners can make a
taking by a 3/5 vote. The Town can do so as well, but must go through a [2/3?] vote at
ATM to do so, a much more difficult and cumbersome process. Troy noted that
community support is important in the success of a taking to avoid costly legal battles.
Sevrens was concerned about the ability to act quickly to buy or accept donated
property. Troy noted that now, with the Land Bank and Community Preservation Act it is
possible to act quickly, with a funding source available.
Regarding elected officials: The choice would be to keep elected County offices
as is -- they are on the State ballot and are State employees -- or to abolish them or
change them to appointed offices, by an act of the State Legislature. The State legislature
may eventually abolish them anyway. There were questions about what would happen
with local fees and setting salaries.
What would be the effects of creating one structure, a "Unigov?" All that
Nantucket does as a county would be re-routed to the "Unigov." There would be no
separate employed county officials. [The elected officials could continue, be abolished, or
be changed to appointed]. A County with broad powers could act without the Town or
ATM approval by a 3/5 vote of the County Commissioners; this enables quick and
powerful action, but weakens the authority of the Town and the representative ATM.
Sevrens felt this new concept would require some time to consider, but wanted to
address how to proceed now on some of the committee's "modest proposals." Reinhard
felt there is an opportunity to examine these ideas beyond our 2007 time frame, but now
we should deal with proposals already put forward. Sevrens wanted to go through the
Preliminary Report.
On the Town Manager title: Troy said if we want a strong central executive, the
title of Manager is appropriate; the authority of Nantucket's Administrator is closer to a
Manager. We could submit an article to ATM to amend the charter to change the title to
Town Manager.
On appointment powers: Willauer was concerned about appointments being
made by the TM without open public discussion, contrary to the current practice with the
BOS appointments. Groux noted that the Charter could require open posting of the
positions, public announcement of the appointment, and BOS review and opportunity for
disapproval of key appointments within a certain time period. The TM would be able to
seek good appointees who are reluctant to apply publicly, and would consider BOS input.
Troy commented that if the TM appoints all officials there might be an insular effect; it is
important to have a balance, with the BOS appointing some [regulatory] positions and the
TM appointing other [administrative] positions.
Reinhard reviewed the proposed list of appointments from the April 10 minutes;
Groux felt they made sense. The TM may be closer to the situation, and the BOS has the
power to recommend and react. Lohmann asked about appointing some currently elected
positions. Those that are created by the State would have to go to the legislature to
change. Others might be changed locally. Troy stressed that the committee should decide
what type of structure we desire, and they would work on how it might be accomplished.
Sevrens asked about prohibiting town employees from serving as Selectmen.
Groux noted that employees serving as selectmen can put the TM in an awkward
position, and that it is a common prohibition in town charters. Troy noted that it is not
possible to control the election process, but the town charter can require a town employee
to resign if elected. The charter can likewise limit the number of appointed positions a
person can hold, but not elected positions. The town must decide how broadly the
prohibition should apply. Changes to the Charter can be accomplished through ATM and
the ballot.
Topham asked about education and experience requirements for a TM with
stronger powers. Groux noted that most TMs have a masters degree in something like
Public Administration. He recommended not including specifications in the Charter that
can be handled by a by-law. Generally, things that you don't want to change easily should
go into the Charter; if it is something you may want to adjust, a by-law is better. Gardner
noted that either way, proposals have to go to ATM; Charter changes have to go to an
election as well.
Topham asked what we should do before the next meeting. Groux said they would
go over our questions and respond or seek more information; Troy urged the committee
to decide what they want in the Charter, what changes can be supported at ATM; they
will help with how to accomplish it, possibly in several stages. Lohmann also asked for
feedback on the implications of the proposals, the experiences elsewhere.
The consultants left to catch the boat at this point, with the thanks of the
committee. Reinhard and Gardner both commented on the helpfulness the consultants
have provided and will provide.
Future Plans. Our next meetings are posted for May 22 and June 12 and 26. We agreed
also to meet next Tuesday, May 16, at 4:00 pm, to promptly "get concrete" in giving the
consultants direction. Members should review the Preliminary Report, make some
decisions at the next meeting, and forward them to the consultants. Gardner noted we
could add more later.
Other Business. Willauer was concerned about the cost, especially of bringing in legal
counsel. Reinhard noted the TGSC does have a budget, and referred to Groux's original
proposal and fees; Groux will bill monthly and stay within the limit proposed. We expect
input from Town Counsel DeRensis, but it is good also to have our own outside counsel.
Kopko asked about the amending procedure. Amending the Charter requires a 2/3
vote at ATM followed by an election; when would that be? Gardner said there could be a
special election. Sevrens noted that things that require only a by-law change would be the
"cleanest" way, needing only a majority at ATM. Reinhard wondered if we'd be ready
with any proposals for the October Special Town Meeting, but Gardner felt our proposals
should be presented as a package at the April Town Meeting.
Adjournment. At 5:45
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann