Loading...
Financial Advisory Associates, Inc. Review of Airport Financial Management - May, 2012_201401231020104505Draft A Review of the Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Management Prepared by Financial Advisory Associates, Inc. 258 Main Street, Suite A2 Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 May 11, 2012 FAA Financial Advisory Associates, Inc. 258 Main Street, Suite A-2 Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 Bus: 508-759-0700 Fax: 508-759-6418 info@faa-inc.com May 11,2012 C. Elizabeth Gibson, Town Manager Town of Nantucket 16 Broad Street Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Ms. Gibson: At the turn of the year, FAA was asked to perform an independent review and to provide a report that outlined the sources of the current financial issues within the Nantucket Municipal Airport. We were also asked to present specific findings and to make recommendations that address those matters. This report brings forth our findings and recommendations for achieving a more optimal Municipal Airport business model. We wish to thank you and your staff for the enthusiastic support we have been provided during our work. We look forward to our pending meeting with the Board of Selectmen. Sincerely yours, FINANCIAL ADVISORY ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael Daley President Table of Contents Page 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Introduction 4 3. Governance Overview 5 4. Nantucket’s Home Rule Charter 7 5. Organizational Structure 7 6. Communications Overview 8 7. Process Overview 10 8. Appendix 12 Town of Nantucket, MA A Review of the Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Management Executive Summary There is one primary question that we, along with everyone else, have been asked to answer. That question is “Who is responsible for the significant financial management issues associated with the Nantucket Municipal Airport?” The simple answer is that everyone is responsible. However, in general, some individuals are more responsible than others. There are many other management questions that also continue to beg for answers. How did the Airport wind up their Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 with over $700,000 of unpaid bills? Why did the Airport need millions of general fund dollars to re-balance their FY 2012 budget? When will the FY 2013 budget be completed? Will that budget be balanced or will the general fund make more subsidies in the coming year? When all of the debt for all of the capital investments at the Airport comes due who will pay for it? These are just a few of the most recently asked questions with few or no answers readily available yet. We found that the primary culprit for the management problems at the Airport is the lack of any defined rules and regulations being set down by the citizens. We found, that given the lack of any written citizens’ doctrine for managing the municipal Airport, those at the top of the town’s executive management in the organization chart did not feel that they were empowered enough to effectively manage the municipal Airport operations. This lack of comfort within the executive branch of the municipal corporation related to both their level of executive authority over the Airport policy-makers and their level of executive authority over the Airport Department employees. The same uncertainty was further amplified at the municipal corporation’s executive staffing levels. No one at the staff level seemed to have certainty relating to the boundaries of executive authority when it came to the municipal Airport. The appearance of the elected leaders’ abdication of all executive authority to their appointees fed the management problems at the staff level. The lack of any certainty to manage or control the Airport operations by both the municipality’s elected and appointed executives amplified the theory that the Airport was a completely autonomous agency. The Airport policy-makers and their staff historically have traveled a management path that was based upon opinions of complete autonomy. The trouble with this complete autonomy theory is now revealed. The autonomy brought with it the current excessive costs of that department’s day-to-day operations. The myth of complete autonomy at the Airport has now been dispelled. 1 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review The reality is that the town’s Airport budget currently has a significant structural deficit. The reality is that the Airport is in a difficult financial position. This municipal department’s current cost of doing business is beyond the reach of their current revenues. There is still uncertainty as to when the revenues will again adequately provide for the necessary expenditures within this department. There is also current uncertainty as to exactly what are the actual spending levels necessary to meet the mission of the municipal Airport. Finally, the reality is that the taxpayers must now fund the current financial issues stemming from the long-term lack of any meaningful executive oversight being directed by the municipality towards this volunteer board and their employees. The reality is that there is no longer complete autonomy at the Airport once the annual spending exceeds the annual revenues. The reality is that now the town’s executive leaders must actually appropriate from their own valuable municipal resources in order to fund the Airport’s annual spending gap. The town recently voted to underwrite the accumulated liabilities that the historical mismanagement has created at the Airport using this theory of complete autonomy. Fortunately, the town has come to recognize that the implementation of a better structure of executive authority will correct the bulk of the financial management problems recently present within the municipal Airport operations. Improvements have already come and more continue to be made. It is a given that the answers to several of the unanswered questions above are emerging. It is clear that within the first quarter of FY 2013 many of the currently missing answers will be provided. We believe it is imperative that the residents of the town of Nantucket demand that the day- to-day management of the municipal Airport be placed within the care and custody of the town administration. The use of volunteer policy-makers should continue. This is especially true as it relates to the provisions of MGL Chapter 90. However, we maintain that under no circumstances should an appointed volunteer body be allowed to exert exclusive executive authority within a municipal setting. Most successful local governments generally elect their officials for the executive purpose. These successful organizations also provide that the executive role will be shared between the volunteers and the professionals. We find that the most successful local governments generally exemplify the concept of shared executive authority. In Nantucket the charter specifically articulates the desire to properly share the executive role between the elected Board of Selectmen and the appointed Town Manger. Historically the concept of sharing executive authority appears to have been missing within the Airport Commission. We hold that this is the root cause of the problems. The past practice of exclusive executive authority at the Airport has not served the community well. We suggest that, in the future, the Airport’s return to financial stability will be best achieved via a shared executive management model. We have provided a copy of the Town’s FY 2012 Organization Chart in the appendix of this report. You will note that the Airport Commission is the only appointed body in the municipal corporation with a directly reporting staff. We have also provided a proposed alternative organization chart with the Airport Department head reporting on a daily basis to 2 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review the Town Manager and not to the volunteer board. We hold that this model will considerably benefit the town’s Airport operations into the future. We hold that the breach of the public confidence that has occurred within the Airport’s operational area will be heartily repaired once the bulk of the standard town-wide management functions and business systems are more fully implemented. We suggest that by simply bringing the Airport operation into the Town Administration and in turn requiring the Airport to use the town’s standard management systems that relate to governance, procurement, finances and human resources, the town will quickly have many of the Airport’s problems moved into a resolution phase. As required, we have provided recommendations for management improvements at the Airport. They are as follows: 1. The town manager is perceived to be the chief executive officer of the town. All department heads should be appointed by the town manager and all department heads should directly report to the town manager. These professional officials should be held accountable for and should oversee the management of the daily departmental operations. This practice should be required within all of the vital operations of the municipal corporation including the Airport Department. We believe that this requires a change in the Nantucket Home Rule Charter. 2. Given the time and effort required within our first recommendation, we strongly recommend that the Airport Commission should immediately vote to establish a policy that embraces and implements all of the existing town of Nantucket corporate policies and procedures pertaining to day-to-day operations as their own. At a minimum these changes should specifically include the following: a. The current standard town management systems such as Human Resources, Procurement, Financial Services, Budgeting and Capital Planning must be immediately embraced and used within and across all of the Airport business functions, as do all other town operations. b. The past practice of the Airport Department’s non-conformance with the town’s standard salary, benefits and classification structure must be immediately eliminated. All municipal Airport employees should be recruited, interviewed, retained and compensated within positions defined and classified in accordance with the universal norms of the municipal corporation. c. The past practice of outsourcing Airport accounting services should be eliminated. We believe the continued use of both non-corporate accounting systems and non-corporate accounting professionals has greatly added to the Airport’s financial management problems. In addition, the use of multiple sets of financial records has heavily contributed to the financial uncertainty presently afflicting the town’s Airport operations. 3 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review 3. The town’s elected executives should use the annual appointment process to assure that all members of the Nantucket Airport Commission are cooperative and respectful of the town’s management systems and staff. The appointing body should confirm that their appointed officials embrace the use of the town’s corporate-wide management professionals and their corresponding management systems. This can be accomplished via regularly scheduled workshop meetings between the appointing body, its respective appointees and the appropriate town management staff. Introduction Financial Advisory Associates has a long-standing history of service to the town of Nantucket. We began our first engagement during FY 2004. We also provided services to the town during FY’s 2005, 2006 and 2007. During our first engagement (Oct 2003 – Mar 2004), we worked under the direction of the town’s finance director. Her goal was a Free Cash Certification issued by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) prior to the annual town meeting in April. Our task was primarily the prior fiscal year’s cash reconciliation and we directly interfaced with the town treasurer. Our work indirectly flowed into the simultaneous efforts of those working on the reconciliation of accounts receivable. This was our firm’s first opportunity to observe with close proximity a good portion of the town’s organization-wide financial systems. This was also a good first look at the level of effort Nantucket required after the end of the fiscal year to get the prior fiscal year properly recorded and reported. Lastly, this engagement also accentuated for us the level of effort that was not focused upon controlling the town’s current fiscal year’s activity. In FY 2005 our firm was retained to help the Finance Department close the gap from the actual end-of-year to when the books were closed on that fiscal year. The gap was a good six months beyond the norm at the time. During that fiscal year and the next one (FY 2005 and FY 2006) we worked with and trained a new accounting officer. The new accountant reported to the finance director. Considerable progress was made in the town’s universal financial systems during this period of time. During this time it became clear that most of the town’s remaining unruly record keeping and reporting problems were due to a lack of quality communications and reconciliations with certain departments. An effort remained in order to achieve a complete and adequate integration of standardized systems across the town’s entire corporate organization. While some town organizations embraced and used the town’s universal financial software, others did not. This problem repeatedly created conflict for the town with the DOR on an annual basis during the year-end reporting and Free Cash Certification process. It became clear to us at the time that the town’s Airport Department was clearly becoming the most 4 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review difficult municipal department for the Finance Department to bring into compliance with the corporate-wide financial systems and procedures. They also were the most difficult department when it came to the implementation and compliance with the requisite corporate internal control systems. The Department of Finance’s difficulty bringing the less cooperative organizations such as the Airport into the town-wide fold had an impact on the finance employees’ morale. In fact, the newly trained accounting employee eventually sought employment in another local business organization. In FY 2007 we worked with and trained the town’s current accounting officer. The same year-end issues with the DOR surfaced. The town’s FY 2006 Balance Sheet was accepted and Free Cash was again certified by the DOR just prior to the town’s annual town meeting for the FY 2008 held in the spring of 2007. Based upon the Finance Department’s inability to achieve full and universal compliance with state accounting requirements and the continued non-use of the town-wide financial systems by some entities within the corporate organization, we chose to no longer bid to provide services to help the town. At that time, given the Airport Department’s continued independent approach to financial reporting we did not believe that we could complete any further improvements for our client. In FY 2010 we did bid and we were awarded a contract to review the town’s costs for legal services, to conduct some comparable reviews of similar municipalities’ legal activities and to make commendations and/or recommendations for changes. We participated in the town’s bid process because under that contract we directly reported to the town manager and the board of selectmen and we thought we could help make improvements in this area. During FY 2011, the town’s former finance director left the town’s employment. As a result, our firm also bid and was awarded a contract early in FY 2012 to assist the town with several financial management issues pertaining to both FY 2011 and FY 2012. The original contract requirements were met. At the turn of the calendar year, it became evident that the DOR was unwilling to certify the town’s Free Cash until the town presented the Airport information in the manner they require. We were engaged to assist with the effort to properly state the historical financial activity of the Airport capital projects. This report is also the result of an amendment to our most recent contract. Governance Overview We have and continue to hold that the primary cause of the financial problems associated with the Nantucket Municipal Airport is rooted within the town’s governing document. We have reviewed the Nantucket Home Rule Charter on a number of occasions. We hold that document responsible for all of the current problems associated with the management of the town’s Airport. We further continue to submit that the citizens of Nantucket should insist that 5 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review the town’s Airport day-today management be defined as a responsibility of the Town Administration. We believe that the laws of science can be applied in many mismanagement scenarios. In the case of Nantucket’s Airport operations we hold that this is the case. In science we learn that “nature abhors a vacuum.” In science, we learn most vacuums will be filled by nature. In Nantucket’s organizational behavior we have seen that the same rule holds true. As you review the charter language below, please note that the town’s charter defines the operational activities that are part of the central administration. The document also lists the functions of the municipal corporation that are not part of the central management system. The problem with the town’s charter document is not that the so-called “Town Administration” is ill defined. It is keenly defined. The problem is also not that the so-called Town Administration’s roles and responsibilities are not defined. They are. We submit that the problem with the town’s current charter is that the limited functions of the municipal corporation, which are not contained within the so-called “Town Administration” section, are not given any rules to follow! We can only find the word “Airport” mentioned twice within the town’s entire charter document. We site the charter’s problem as one of omission. The first time the charter document uses the word Airport, it provides that the board of selectmen shall appoint an Airport Commission. It also provides that the board of selectmen can remove said commissioners for cause. The second use of the word Airport in the charter document is found in Section 4.4. That section of the charter is provided below. As you will see, paragraph (b) of this section provides that the Town Administration does not include the Airport. We note that on at least one previous occasion there has been a charter amendment made to place formerly exempted town operations under the auspices of the so-called “Town Administration.” We also note that the amendment language was not comprehensive. Now, as a result of the amendment activity, the charter document reads in an inconsistent manner. This is another reason we suggest that the town should consider an amendment to the existing charter language. Given the overall lack of any written rules or regulations pertaining to the management of the town’s Airport we submit that, for the number of years we have been perched to observe the town’s overall organization, the Airport department has made up its own rules as it has gone along. We suggest that there is a significant vacuum created by the charter’s lack of any written rules pertaining to the management of the town’s Airport. We suggest that the record of management problems at the Airport is the result of this portion of the municipal corporation’s vacuum of rules. Given the lack of any citizen based rules, the parties that should obey the rules were allowed to make up their own rules as they went along. In our 6 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review opinion, this rogue-like behavior should be curtailed. We submit that until the citizens of Nantucket take the charter action necessary to place the Airport operation under the Town Administration, these management problems could continue to exist. Nantucket’s Home Rule Charter Section 4.4 – Town Administration Departments [Amended 4-10-2002 AT M by Art. 46, Approved 4-1-2003 AT E] (a) The Town Administration shall include the Building, Finance, Fire, Health, Island Home, Marine and Coastal Resources, Police, Public Works, and Visitors Services departments; provided, however, that nothing in this Charter mandates the continued existence of any such Town Administration department or continuance of a department name or function. (b) The Town Administration shall not include the Airport, the Park and Recreation, the School and the Water departments. Organizational Structure There are generally layers of management outlined within municipal charter documents. The layers include elected officials, appointed officials, employees and others, such as the citizens of the municipal corporation. In the case of Nantucket, the elected board of selectmen and the appointed town manager actually share the executive function. Through the open town meeting process, the citizens provide the legislative function. The board of selectmen is authorized to appoint policy makers such as an Airport Commission. The town manager generally appoints the employees, especially the senior management employees. There is a clear line of accountability within this structure. Inferior and or improper behavior by senior managers or their subordinates is dealt with in an effective and professional manner. This has not been the case within the Airport portion of the organization. Since the town’s charter is silent on how the non-Town Administration functions of the municipal corporation must behave, the Airport Commission appointed by the board of selectmen has behaved in a fairly autonomous manner. Given no rules via the local charter, the only rules for the administration are found in MGL Chapter 90. Within this statute Airport commissions appear to be allowed to exert broad authority. We hold that the local citizens, via a well-drafted Home Rule Charter, can regulate the behavior of their Airport Commission. We also hold that the current Airport Commission can and should embrace the existing management structure and business systems without any charter changes. Because one can, does not mean one should. 7 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review We have observed that in the arena of Airport operations the non-elected policy making volunteers have assumed that the executive function belongs exclusively to them and their department head. We then find that in an effort to demonstrate this autonomy, in too many cases they appear to have gone way too far astray. This is particularly true in the area of capital spending, employee position classifications, benefits and salary and wages. Communications Overview Elected Officials: We have not found significant evidence that over the years there has been much accountability required of the town’s appointed officials by the elected officials. We understand the limited time and resources and expect that the communication void was not intentional. The lack of oversight of these appointed policy-makers by their appointing authority has contributed to the long-term problem. Repeated appointments of non-cooperative policy- makers contributed to the long-term growth of the problem. Future improvements in the communications between the elected town officials and their appointees and the town’s senior staff will help eliminate these types of management issues. Appointed Officials: In the case of appointed officials, we find that there are two types of appointed officials that contributed to the failings associated with the financial operation of the Airport. First, it is clear that the appointees to the Airport Commission have historically acted in a manner that can be defined as roguish. That management style was not the best mix to use when one looks at the management style of the most immediate Airport Department head. The aggressive and abrasive manner of this former management employee seems to have been rewarded by his appointing authority. The use of both transparent and not so transparent compensation methods for the former manager seems to indicate the policy-making officials heavily rewarded the manager during his tenure. Had his appointing authority addressed and disciplined his lack of cooperative and professional management behavior, many of today’s problems at the Airport would not exist. The second manner in which some of the town’s other appointed officials contributed to the problems at the Airport comes within the review process. Clearly, the Capital Budgeting review process and the Operational Budget review process did not properly flesh out the pending financial problems in an optimal way. Again, it appears to us that little effort was exerted in the direction of the Airport’s business planning. We hold that the combination of opinions of autonomy and the use of non-town accounting systems and accountants begot a weak annual review process. 8 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review In the future, communications between various appointed committees also needs to be expanded. Annual capital planning must be linked to annual operational planning. The cost of debt and maintenance flowing into the operational budget must be considered fully before future significant capital expenditures are recommended to the annual town meeting. We hold that the citizens’ pre-town meeting review system is now much more keenly tuned into the Airport’s business model. Given the magnitude of the loans recently made by the town’s general fund to subsidize the Airport operations, we feel that the annual level of citizen scrutiny that was necessary and not adequately performed in the past will now regularly occur long into the future. Employees: We believe that the town manager is both uniquely and completely qualified to serve as the town’s chief executive officer. We also believe that had the town manager and the town’s other senior management team been allowed to contribute to the management of the municipal Airport’s daily affairs there would be few, if any financial problems to deal with at the Airport today. There is a core corporate management team with powers and duties that are based in both the local municipal laws and regulations and the state’s laws and regulations. These include such management functions as accounting and financial reporting, human resources, procurement, cash management, billing, budgeting, revenue collections and debt management. Every municipal function or department generally needs to avail themselves to these standardized corporate activities. No single municipal operation should have any autonomous ownership of any of these core municipal corporation functions. The structural problem with the Airport’s budget is an example of why individual units of the greater municipal corporation should not be independently performing these management transactions. The economy of scale achieved across the municipal corporation via these standard management activities is the first reason for one universal set of management systems for these corporate-wide functions. A second and more important reason for the required use of these organization-wide management standards and systems is compliance. The best approach to compliance issues for management in municipalities is universal standards and systems for universal functions and unique standards and systems for activities unique to each operation. The difference between the unique activities associated with the management of Our Island Home and the management of the Police Department is a good example. The heads of these two differing departments and their respective staffers are in place to manage the activities that are unique to their departments. They do so by using a considerable number of standardized town-wide systems and their own separately managed departmental systems. The Airport is no different. That operation doesn’t require a complete set of unique management systems across the board. Yet that appears to have been the goal. We suggest that the Airport budget process needs to plan and fund for the unique needs of the operation and not the universal needs. Much of the waste and duplication can be removed from the Airport’s budget by a judicious use of the town-wide management systems already 9 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review in place. Every Airport position needs to be reviewed with an eye aimed exclusively at only the unique needs of that portion of the greater organization. The same is true for all town organizations. Others: We hold that there are others that also contributed to the demise of the Airport’s financial stability. We understand the questions we have heard regarding the role of the CPA firm that worked directly for the Airport. We suggest that they could have done a better job. We understand the questions we have heard regarding the role of the CPA firm that audits the town. We suggest that their efforts have been focused at a much higher level of internal control risk than just the Airport. It is possible that they could have raised a more aggressive red flag regarding the Airport accounting and reporting. However, there are only so many red flags that one can effectively wave on each annual pass through the corporate books. We also hold that the state regulators might have done a better job of alerting the town’s leaders that there was a problem at the Airport. In defense of the state’s oversight agency, we know that they also were focused on the control areas of higher risk such as cash and accounts receivable. We credit the state officials with finally bringing the Airport matter to a head this last year. They did finally take the actions necessary to reign in the Airport’s financial management problems. We suggest that the town’s financial advisor also could have done a better job. The management and issuance of municipal debt is highly regulated at both the federal and state levels. In addition to pleasing the FAA, the town must also please the SEC and the IRS. In our opinion, the firm that the town uses to assist with its debt management seems to have missed some opportunities to red flag some of the Airport’s capital funding problems. Again, this is a communications matter and we know the town staff and the consulting firm are now both fully focused on their former shortcomings in this area. Process Overview The Operating Budget and Capital Project Planning processes should include a comprehensive annual review of all previously funded projects. Much of the many Airport debt issuance problems were directly related to poor communications. The Operating Budget and the Capital Project Approval processes are done at the annual town meeting. No votes should be recommended and taken at the town meeting unless there is a clear understanding of the interaction with all of the other capital projects. No Airport capital funding should occur unless there is a clear understanding of the impact on the current and future operational budgets. The Procurement process should be centralized and standardized across the municipal corporation. All municipal functions, divisions or agencies should procure via the town’s universal procurement system. This not only applies to the procurement of goods, services and construction. This also applies to the procurement of grants and other unusual funding sources. All Airport procurements should be handled via the central procurement office. 10 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review The Contracting process (Legal) should be central and standardized across the municipal corporation. Contracts should also be similarly standardized. This also applies to both purchasing contracts and grants. All Airport contracts should be processed through the central legal office. The Accounting process (Finance) should be central and standardized across the municipal corporation. All accounting and financial reporting should be managed by the town’s Department of Finance. This is also especially applicable to capital projects and grants. All Airport accounting should be accomplished via the corporate-wide financial systems. The Capital Funding process should be central and standardized across the municipal corporation. More cordial communications are necessary between the central management team and the various departmental leaders. The same is true for both the Airport’s long term and short term capital funding. The town’s Project Completion process also needs to be central and standardized across the municipal corporation. When projects experience problems, it is not uncommon for communications to shut down. Improved communications will bring more universal resources to the table when a smaller functional department becomes overwhelmed by the challenges that often occur during irregular activities such as large capital projects. This especially includes the larger multi-funded Airport capital projects. 11 Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review APPENDIX 12Nantucket Municipal Airport Financial Review Town of Nantucket Organization Chart Fiscal Year 2012 Employees Planning Board Employees Supt. & Staff Siasconset Water Comm Board of Selectmen Elected Boards & Officials Nantucket Water Comm Moderator Shellfish & Harbor Adv. Bd Historic District Comm Town Clerk Land Bank Comm School Committee NP& EDC Housing Authority Supt. Supt. & Staff Dir. & Staff Staff Dir. & Staff Appointed by Board of Selectmen / County Commissioners Con- stable Airport Comm Council on Aging Con Comm Park & Rec Comm Vets Agent Visitor Svcs & Info Adv Comm SSA Board Member SSA Port Council Town Counsel ZBA Abatement Adv Comm Cap Prog Comm Fin Comm Cultural Council Council Human Svcs Comm School CPS NHS Town Mgr & Staff NES Code Enforcement & Regulatory Svcs Fire Chief Finance Dir Police Chief Marine Supt Adv Comm. Non-Voting Taxpayers Vis Svc Dir HR Dir IS/GIS Public Works Health & Human Svcs Bldg Commissioner Health HDC Natural Resources Mgr & Staff Assessor Treas / Col SEF / SWEF OIH Admin Comm on Disabiltiy Senior Svcs Parks & Rec Taxi Advisory Comm.Traffic Safety Workgroup VOTERS Audit Comm Harbor Plan Implement Comm Tree Advisory Comm Cemetery Workgroup Community Preservation Comm. Affordable Housing Trust Scholarship Comm Beach Mgmt Advisory Comm Roads & ROW Comm Agricultural Comm Nantucket Historical Comm Ad Hoc Budget WorkgroupRegistrars of Voters Streets & Sidewalks Comm.Energy Study Comm. Bulk Fuel Study Comm. Human Svcs Contract Review Comm Downtown Revitalize Comm 13 Town of Nantucket Organization Chart Post Proposed Charter Change Planning Board Employees Supt. & Staff Siasconset Water Comm Board of Selectmen Elected Boards & OfficialsNantucket Water Comm Moderator Shellfish & Harbor Adv. Bd Historic District Comm Town Clerk Land Bank Comm School Committee NP&EDC Housing Authority Supt. Supt. & Staff Dir. & Staff Staff Dir. &StaffAppointed by Board of Selectmen / County CommissionersCon- stable Airport Comm Council on Aging Con Comm Park & Rec Comm Vets AgentVisitor Svcs & Info Adv Comm SSA Board Member SSA Port Council Town Counsel ZBA Abatement Adv CommCap Prog CommFin CommCultural Council Council Human Svcs Comm SchoolCPS NHS Town Mgr & Staff NES Code Enforcement & Regulatory Svcs Fire Chief FinanceDir PoliceChief MarineSupt Adv Comm. Non-Voting Taxpayers Vis SvcDir HR Dir IS/GIS Public Works Health & Human Svcs Bldg Commissioner Health HDC Natural ResourcesAssessor Treas / Col SEF / SWEFOIH AdminComm on Disabiltiy Senior Svcs Parks & RecTaxi Advisory Comm.Traffic Safety Workgroup VOTERS Audit Comm Harbor Plan Implement CommTree Advisory Comm Cemetery Workgroup Community Preservation Comm. Affordable Housing Trust Scholarship Comm Beach Mgmt Advisory CommRoads & ROW Comm Agricultural Comm Nantucket Historical Comm Ad Hoc Budget WorkgroupRegistrars of Voters Streets & Sidewalks Comm.Energy Study Comm. Bulk Fuel Study Comm.Human Svcs Contract Review Comm Downtown Revitalize Comm Airport Manager 14