HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSCminutes20070226Town Government Study Committee
Draft Minutes, February 26, 2007
Land Bank Office
Call to Order. Chairman Reinhard called the fifty-eighth meeting of the Town Government Study
Committee to order at 4:00 pm. Present were members Reinhard, Lohmann, Miller, Sevrens,
Topham, and Willauer.
Minutes. The minutes of February 12 were approved as submitted.
Discussion of the Forum with the Nantucket Civic League.
Sevrens commented that she spoke about the two articles making the Planning Board [PB]
and the HDC appointed boards because she wanted to emphasize support, not just discussion of
them. Reinhard noted he had changed the wording in the Final Report to reflect that. Sevrens felt
there had been no objection to the article limiting Board of Selectmen [BOS] serving as town
employees. Topham expressed the hope that the BOS would take more time interviewing and
reviewing candidates especially for important regulatory boards, including paying attention to
attendance. Miller observed that one of Christine Silverstein's objections to appointing boards had
been an inadequate appointment process; Miller noted that our advisory recommendations urge an
open, transparent process. Sevrens observed that if the BOS makes appointments, they are in a
position to keep track of the performance, although they should not micromanage boards once
appointed. Willauer noted the BOS has no control over elected officials, but would have more over
appointed boards. The BOS is more responsive to public concerns than other elected officials
Reinhard noted that there is a lengthy discussion on "Yack" regarding the appointed vs.
elected issue, initially negative, but with increasing balance. Wider coverage will come with TV
broadcasting of the forum.
Willauer observed that the I&M headline did not accurately reflect the content of the article
on the forum, which was quite good. Reinhard proposed a letter to the editor in response, as an
opportunity to further discus the issues. Sevrens felt it important to point out to those urging a
Mayor/Council form of government that it would essentially be creating a city system of
governance, not appropriate for Nantucket, and throwing out a long-standing system. It would not
solve the desire for strong leadership. Willauer observed that the implications had not been thought
through: how would electing a Mayor improve things? What areas would elect representatives?
Lohmann urged separate responses to the I&M article and editorial and to the Independent
"Lighthouse Keeper" column, one dealing with the appointed vs. elected issue, another dealing with
the mayor/council form of government issue. Willauer cautioned that Reinhard should be careful to
respond as the chair of the TGSC, not as a candidate. There was discussion of other members writing
letters. There will likely be other letters to the editor to respond to. Sevrens felt there was no need to
be apologetic and Miller felt the press coverage should be seen a positive, eliciting discussion.
Miller commented that there is a dichotomy between people who think the TGSC has gone
too far and those who think it has not gone far enough. The TGSC is an agent of change.
Topham inquired about the conflicting information about SHAB. The proposal to make it an
appointed body came in the context of the development of the Harbor Plan, but did not have the
support of the SHAB board members. Willauer considered tabling the SHAB proposal, but the
committee felt the same reasoning favoring appointing still applied. It was noted there were no
candidates for election to SHAB. It will be discussed on the floor of Town Meeting [ATM] and the
Harbor Plan representatives can make the case there.
Reinhard summed up that the forum had produced a good discussion, both at the forum and in
both the newspapers and on "Yack."
Final Report.
Reinhard outlined the Final Report [FR]: an Introduction; Part I, dealing with the Warrant
Articles; Part II, dealing with the Advisory Recommendations; Part III, dealing with ideas for Further
Study; and Part IV, a brief Summary section. A possible appendix with more detailed rationales from
past minutes might be added later. The section on Advisory Recommendations needs most work.
Reinhard noted that in the subsection on Boards and Commissions a broad introductory explanation
covered most of the "bullet points" and wondered how much more detail was necessary under the
individual points. The committee members felt brevity was best. Reinhard will apply the format to the
other subsections.
Considering the audience for the FR, in addition to the BOS and the Town Administrator
[TA] the historic record for future study committees and the interested public were mentioned.
Sevrens commented that the public will want to know if the BOS and TA are following the
recommendations.
The deadline for finalizing the FR is this Thursday, to go into the packets for the BOS for the
14th of March. Reinhard suggested committee members send him suggestions. He will incorporate
them and send out a final draft Wednesday morning and members should respond as soon as possible.
Distribution plans for copies of the FR include hard copies for the BOS and the TA, the Town
Clerk and the Athenaeum, plus a few extra for interested citizens to pick up. Electronic copies will be
sent to the two newspapers, the TV stations, the TGSC and the NCL websites. It will not be necessary
to print as many copies of the FR as were made for the Preliminary Report, which was handed out at
the 2006 ATM, but a brief summary handout might be put together later and made available at the
2007 ATM. The TGSC will have a 2006 report in the Town Annual Report as well.
Reinhard will present the FR to the BOS at their meeting at 6:00 pm on March 14, taking the
opportunity to announce its completion and availability. He will give a brief summary, focussing
primarily on the Advisory Recommendations, as the Warrant Articles have had extended discussion
already. He may take questions from the BOS, but Sevrens emphasized it is the time to present, not
debate the report. He will not use visuals, but may have a summary handout.
Willauer raised a question brought up at the Forum, why the TGSC had not invited the PB or
the HDC to address the changes proposed by the TGSC. While the TGSC had invited a few
individuals to address them on general matters of governance, time did not allow for meetings with
representatives of all elements of government. The TGSC's approach was to focus on structural
forms, studying comparisons with other systems and communities, rather than interviewing
individuals on their personal views. However, the TGSC solicited and received input from many
individuals.
Hearings before the Finance Committee [FinCom]
Reinhard reported on the two sessions he had with the FinCom; originally one had been
scheduled for February 22, but it was moved up at the last minute to the 15th. The first meeting went
on so long that the TGSC returned for a second meeting on the original date.
Unanticipated was a lengthy discussion of the article proposing the title change from Town
Administrator to Town Manager. Apparently Town Counsel DeRensis had previously raised with the
Fin Com some concerns about it possibly causing unintended effects in state law; Reinhard assured
them our consultant had indicated it was a change in title only, without further legal effect; he asked
for specific information about the concern.
Another concern DeRensis had raised was about the method chosen to amend the Town
Charter. He recommended going to the State Legislature for a Special Act, while our consultants had
proposed using Home Rule procedure to do so. Both are legal methods, but have differing
characteristics to recommend them.
Members of the FinCom also had questions about and some opposition to the limitation on
BOS members serving as town employees and moving from elected to appointed boards.
At the second meeting, TGSC's consulting counsel Troy was in attendance, and while he
urged the FinCom to "listen to their Town Counsel," he felt there were not major disagreements.
Despite one member's objection to Counsel Troy speaking when Counsel DeRensis was not there,
Troy responded to the various concerns raised and urged the committee not to "let the idea go down"
because of dispute over the method of adoption.
Reinhard felt it was useful to have these issues brought up at this point, to have discussion, to
have time to respond to some of the FinCom's concerns and allay their fears. It is helpful to know
where the undercurrents of opposition are and to be able to address them before ATM.
[See also "Notes on 3 meetings," attached]
Next Meeting. Reinhard will post the meeting with the BOS on March 14, as all members are
encouraged to attend; the next TGSC working meeting will be March 19 at 2:00 pm in the Land Bank
Office.
Adjournment. At 5:45 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Lohmann