HomeMy WebLinkAboutTGSC_03162021_ Packet1
MEETING POSTING
TOWN OF NANTUCKET Pursuant to MGL Chapter 30A, § 18-25 All meeting notices and agenda must be filed and time stamped with the Town Clerk’s Office and posted at least 48 hours prior to the meeting (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays)
Committee/Board/s Town Government Study Committee
Day, Date, and Time Tuesday March 16, 2021 9:00 AM
Location / Address “REMOTE PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM Pursuant to Governor Baker’s
March 12, 2020 Order Regarding Open Meeting Law (Attached); the meeting will be aired at a later time on the Town’s Government TV YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-sgxA1fdoxteLNzRAUHIxA”
Signature of Chair or Authorized Person John B. Brescher
WARNING: IF THERE IS NO QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT, OR IF MEETING POSTING IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OML STATUTE, NO MEETING MAY BE HELD!
AGENDA
Please list below the topics the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting TO JOIN MEETING https://zoom.us/j/2179151123 MEETING ID: 217 915 1123 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Public Comment 4. Approval of minutes of February 17, 2021 5. Update from Chair re: discussion with public re: NPEDC and update on action items 6. Discussion: unresolved items on topics to investigate list a. Review of other charters to see examples of organization of Government in charter; b. Update on information re: what other towns do for non-voting taxpayers 7. Other Business 8. Date and time of next meeting 9. Adjournment
Town Government Study Committee
Minutes of the meeting of February 17, 2021. The meeting took place via Zoom. Members of the
committee present were: John Brescher, Rick Atherton, Linda Williams, and Tucker Holland.
1) Chair John Brescher called the meeting to order at 10:05 am with a quorum.
2) Agenda: Tucker Holland moved approval of the agenda, seconded by Linda Williams.
All voted in favor by voice vote.
3) Public Comment: None.
4) Meeting Minutes: A motion was made by Campbell Sutton to approve the minutes for
the meetings held on July 8, 2020, September 2, 2020, and November 4, 2020. The
motion was seconded by Rick Atherton and all voted in favor by voice vote.
5) Chair Update re: meetings with Town Administration and Advisory Committee of Non-
Voting Taxpayers.
John Brescher discussed the potential for remote participation with open Town Meeting and
informed the Committee that he would be attending a zoom webinar to discuss this.
John also discussed his conversation with the Advisory Committee of Non-Voting Taxpayers
(“ACNVT”) that was held the prior week. The ACNVT expressed their frustration with a myriad
of topics, not the least of which was their lack of representation at Town Meeting. John offered
to discuss this issue with some of his contacts at the state level to see what other municipalities
do. The ACNVT also expressed interest in continuing to meet remotely via Zoom once the state
of emergency has subsided.
Linda Williams noted that in her opinion, she thought they were frustrated by some of the zoning
articles or the lack of adoption of some of the zoning articles. Campbell Sutton added that she
thought it was more of a difference between the mentalities of modern amenities versus what
infrastructure the Town has in place currently.
Tucker Holland added that we suspect they would like more than one person to be able to
represent them at Town Meeting. Also, they would like to see more of the appropriation articles
and ballot questions approved. Campbell suggested we reach out to other Towns to see what
they do.
Rick Atherton added that this concern has been around for a number of years and will likely
continue. Perhaps a solution would be to add another speaker to Town Meeting.
The discussion concluded with John offering to reach out to contacts on the Cape to see what
other communities with a large seasonal population are able to do.
John Brescher also updated the Committee on his discussions with Town Manager Libby
Gibson. First, Town Counsel will be reviewing the charter to make sure it is updated and
complies with all state laws. Rick suggested, in particular, we focus Town Counsel’s review on
the Parks and Recreation section.
John added that he believes the Parks and Recreation section will be revamped and somehow
melded with the Community School. While this may still be a nascent concept, it resulted in
spirited debate from the Committee.
John also added that he is hoping that Libby will talk to some contacts at Suffolk University to
have some students work on a report about Town Meeting. Campbell Sutton noted that she
would prefer that this type of report and education be more of a grassroots effort than from an
outside source.
6) Discussion of next steps for report to Town Meeting.
John Brescher opened the discussion to the Board about the next steps to get ready for the
Town Meeting report.
Campbell Sutton noted that we should add the suggestion that the Town prepare better flow-
charts for organizational structure and for complaints.
Rick Atherton noted that we seem to focus on the Select Board to act because they have issues
of concern. He added that Charters in other Towns mandate Town Administration to submit
reports or charts as part of the Charter.
Campbell Sutton suggested the Committee review the topics we have looked at and determine
if we need to review more:
Basic Form of Government – do more
Organization and Flow Charts – do more
Audit Committee – all set
Code enforcement – may need more
Election – check other towns
HDC – done
TGSC – maybe review
Licensing – SB purview
Parking Commission – done
Sewer commission – unintended consequences
Wannacomet/Airport – I don’t think we should touch this…
Park & Rec – ongoing
Ombudsman – done
Airport Statute – done
Non-voting taxpayers – will review
It was suggested that John and Campbell coordinate to see which of these topics the
Committee will investigate next meeting.
7) Other Business: None.
8) Date and Time of the Next Meeting:
March 10th – 9:00 am.
9) Adjournment:
A motion was made by Linda Williams and duly seconded by Rick Atherton to adjourn at
11:22 am.
Respectfully Submitted,
John B. Brescher, Chair
The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission was founded in 1973 by a special act.
This document sets forth the mission, composition, and powers of the NP&EDC, and a comparison to
neighboring the Cape Cod Commission and Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
The question at hand is could the NP&EDC be reformed and improved. Areas for improvement are:
• Governance and accountability
• Update mission to support balanced growth, the environment, and quality of life
• Align mission and powers with our neighboring Regional Planning Authorities: The Cape Cod
Commission and Martha’s Vineyard Commission
This briefing document is organized in two parts:
• Part I: Mission, responsibilities and powers of the NP&EDC including:
• Characteristics
• Past governance recommendations
• Part II: How does the NP&EDC compare to neighboring Planning Commissions?
Part I
Mission, Responsibilities, and Powers of the NP&EDC
The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC or the Commission) was
established in 1973 by a Special Act. Since 1978, the Commission has been responsible for comprehensive
planning on Nantucket (Source: 2019 Novak Consulting Group report on PLUS). The Commission’s mission
is:
• To plan for the orderly and coordinated development and protection of the physical, social and
economic resources of the Island of Nantucket.
While the Planning Board is responsible for regulatory approvals as well as proposing, administering, and
enforcing zoning matters, the Planning Commission is responsible for longer range plans and looking after
the “physical, social and economic development of [Nantucket].” (source: The Special Act)
• The Commission makes recommendations to the responsible county and town agencies. The
Commission has one regulatory power, which is to identify and permit Developments of Regional
Economic Impact. This is accomplished through issuing, at its discretion, a “Development of
Regional Economic Impact Permit. (DREIP).” The DREIP is in addition to zoning and MCD permits.
• The NPEDC also operates as Nantucket’s Regional Planning Agency (RPA). Currently, there are 13
RPAs in the Commonwealth. The NP&EDC is the only RPA in the Commonwealth that serves a
town, a county, an island, and a region.
• Since its creation, the NP&EDC has been responsible for the appointment and oversight of the
Director of Planning through an employment agreement (this is not a requirement of the Special
Act).
Membership and Appointment
The NPEDC consists of 11 members:
• The five members of the Planning Board
• One representative from the Nantucket Housing Authority
• One representative of the County Commissioners of Nantucket County
• One representative of the Conservation Commission
• Three at-large members with staggered terms, appointed by the NP&EDC.
Prior to 2017, the NPEDC had 12 members, with the 12th being the Director of the DPW. This seat was
removed via a revision to the Special Act, adopted at Town Meeting.
Funding
The Commission appropriates funds from the Treasury of the Town of Nantucket. The RPA designation
allows Nantucket to access state and federal grants to fund transportation, transit, economic
development, and planning. Programs include 3C Transportation Planning Activities, Highway Safety
Improvement Program, District Local Technical Assistance, the annual Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) funds (awarded based on a five-year listing of Federal and State Highway and Transit
projects), CARES act funds, and other development funds.
Governance and Past Recommendations
The NPEDC is responsible for the Town’s planning efforts, but the ultimate decision-making authority for
the Town and County rests with the Select Board. The Novak Consulting Group reviewed PLUS in 2019,
and observed a natural tension as to who is responsible for establishing a vision or directing the Town’s
planning activity and staff.
The Novak Group observed that the Town has grown and evolved its government structure over the past
nearly 50 years – principally by creating and then expanding the role of Town Manager and defined its
executive functions. The 2007 amendment to the Town Charter further consolidated the ZBA, Historical
Commission, Historic District Commission, Conservation Commission, and Planning Board as part of Town
Administration.
Importantly, the NP&EDC is neither elected by the people nor appointed by the Select Board.
The Novak Group recommended the Town consider an alternative structure for its RPA:
… As the Town’s population and economic and environmental landscape change, it may be
appropriate to evaluate the following: (1) whether the NPEDC is the appropriate agency to serve
as the RPA for Nantucket; and (2) should it have hiring authority and determine conditions of
employment for employees who report to Town Administration…An alternative structure for the
RPA could provide both efficiencies and clarity within PLUS by consolidating Planning functions
under a single Board and, subsequently, reducing the number of Boards and Commissions and the
amount of time spent providing administrative and staff support. (May 2019 report on PLUS)
The Novak Group did not make a specific recommendation about where the RPA should live nor did they
recommend elimination of the NP&EDC.
Part II
How does the Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission compare to neighboring
Planning Commissions?
The Nantucket Planning Commission differs from The Cape Cod Commission and Martha’s Vineyard
Commission in three important ways:
• Composition
• Mission
• Powers
Composition
• Nantucket is the only Regional Planning Commission that is comprised of only one town. It has 11
Commissioners:
o All five members of the Planning Board (elected by the voters)
o One representative from the Nantucket Housing Authority
o One representative of the County Commissioners of Nantucket County
o One representative of the Conservation Commission
o Three at-large members with staggered terms, appointed by the NP&EDC.
• The Cape Cod Commission (Barnstable County) has 19 Commissioners:
o 15 members, one each appointed by the Select Board of each of 15 towns
o One county commissioner appointed by the board of the county commissioners
o One Native American appointed by the board of county commissioners
o one minority appointed by the board of county commissioners
o one minority appointed by the governor, serving in an advisory role only
o The 18 voting members each have one vote
• Martha’s Vineyard (Dukes County) has 21 Commissioners
o One Selectman or a resident registered to vote from each town, appointed by the board
of selectmen from that town
o Nine persons elected at large island wide, provided that there shall not be less than one
person nor more than two persons elected from each town on Martha's Vineyard
o One county commissioner or designee of the board of county commissioners
o one member of the cabinet, or his designee, appointed by the governor;
o four persons whose principal residence is not Martha's Vineyard to be appointed by the
governor, said persons to have a voice but not vote in deciding matters before the
commission.
Observations
Nantucket is unique in several ways:
o Neighboring Commissions do not include members of Planning Boards, unless as
designees of the select boards.
o Nantucket has no advisory appointees and no governor’s appointee
o sitting members of the NP&EDC appoint the at-large members. In other counties, the
select boards of towns have right of appointment.
o Nantucket gives a right of appointment to the conservation commission and the housing
authority. Other commissions give the right of appointment to the select boards, or in
the case of MV, 9 commissioners are elected.
Mission
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission Act says:
• The purpose of the commission created by this act shall be to further protect the health, safety
and general welfare of island residents and visitors by preserving and conserving for the
enjoyment of present and future generations the unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific,
and cultural values of Martha's Vineyard which contribute to public enjoyment, inspiration and
scientific study, by protecting these values from development and uses which would impair them,
and by promoting the enhancement of sound local economies.
The Cape Cod Commission Act says:
• The purpose of the Cape Cod commission shall be to further: the conservation and preservation
of natural undeveloped areas, wildlife, flora and habitats for endangered species; the
preservation of coastal resources including aquaculture; the protection of groundwater, surface
water and ocean water quality, as well as the other natural resources of Cape Cod; balanced
economic growth; the provision of adequate capital facilities, including transportation, water
supply, and solid, sanitary and hazardous waste disposal facilities; the coordination of the
provision of adequate capital facilities with the achievement of other goals; the development of
an adequate supply of fair affordable housing; and the preservation of historical, cultural,
archaeological, architectural, and recreational values.
The Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission Act says:
• In order to plan for the orderly and coordinated development and protection of the physical,
social and economic resources of the Island of Nantucket, there is hereby established the
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission. The Commission shall be
responsible for the preparation of comprehensive plans for the physical, social and economic
development of said county and town and shall make recommendations for action to implement
said plans to the responsible county and town agencies.
Observations
The CCC and MVC specifically seek balanced and/or sustainable growth, specifically plan for protection of
the environment and environmental resources, cultural resources, and quality of life. The CCC also
highlights planning for affordable housing.
Powers
The Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard Commission are both RPAs which, like Nantucket, create
transportation plans, apply for transportation and development grants, administer TIP funds, and create a
variety of plans (development, housing, etc) for the region.
• All three commissions have the ability to identify, designate, and regulate Developments of
Regional Impact (Nantucket calls these DREIs) but differ in how they define these.
• The MV and CC Commissions have an additional power, which is to designate and regulate
Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC). This power is granted by the Commonwealth
because of fragile regional environments or extraordinary cultural landscapes and historic towns.
• DCPCs are used by the CCC and MVC to guide growth
• DCPCs allow CCC and MVC to ban fertilizer use outright (Nantucket does not have the ability to
ban fertilizer use).
• DCPCs allow the Commissions to pause development while necessary planning tools that address
critical concerns are implemented. If zoning or other regulatory changes are adopted, these
override pre-existing unexercised grandfathered rights.
Observations
The powers granted by the Commonwealth to the CCC and MVC are unique among RPAs in the state and
allows. Because Nantucket has only one town, it does not need to coordinate among multiple towns’
zoning and permitting laws. Nonetheless, there are attractive elements to the ability to designate DCPCs.
Resources and References
https://www.mvcommission.org/dcpcs
https://www.capecodcommission.org/about-us/ccc-act
https://ecode360.com/15338757
https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/306/Planning-Economic-Development-Commission
https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29539/Nantucket-PLUS-Study---Project-Report---
Revised1?bidId=
Introduction
Technical Impediments to Remote Participation
Legal Impediments to Remote Participation
Next Steps
1
Agenda
Wayland Open Town Meeting
~10,000 registered voters
Began on-premises electronic voting in 2011
◦Annual Town Meeting averages 600 voters
◦Town Elections average 2100 voters
Objectives: speed, accuracy, and privacy
Security
◦All messages are encrypted
◦Nothing is connected to the Internet
◦Moderator can initiate a real-time audit
Results
◦Voters make decisions on the merits, without concern for consequences from family,
friends, neighbors, co-workers, employees, or employers
◦Town Meeting is more relaxed, deliberate, and methodical; decisions made in this
environment are better, to the benefit of every Wayland resident
◦Annual Town Meetings are shortened by an average of 3 hours
2
Why Enable Remote Participation?
Some residents can’t or won’t obtain childcare on school
nights
Some residents must rise early for work the following
morning
Some residents don’t drive at night
Some residents have commitments on weekends
For years, Wayland residents have been asking
“We can shop and bank via the Internet, why can’t we
participate in Town Meeting via the Internet?”
Remote Participation will increase participation in Town
Meeting
3
Technical Impediments to Remote Participation
How to make remote participation simple?
How to detect a widespread Internet outage?
How to secure votes cast via the Internet?
How to detect and deter proxy voting (one person casting
votes on behalf of another)?
4
5
How to Make Remote Participation Simple?
Each remote participant uses their own smartphone or tablet
◦Desktop computers are not appliances
◦Desktop computers may not have a microphone and video camera
◦Sharing devices would create time pressure when voting
Remote participation only requires logging in to a web page
◦Downloading and installing an application is not required
◦Same URL for everyone
◦One button for each activity
Check In (using voter code and password issued by Town Clerk)
Request to Speak
Vote
Audit
Obtain Help
Check Out
6
How to Make Remote Participation Simple?
Article 11 Main Motion
Discussion
Speak Audit Help! Leave
7
How to Make Remote Participation Simple?
Article 11 Main Motion
VOTE
Speak Audit Help! Leave
Yes No Abstain
30 seconds remaining
Your Vote?
8
How to Make Remote Participation Simple?
Article 11 Main Motion
VOTE
Speak Audit Help! Leave
Yes No Abstain
16 seconds remaining
You Voted Yes
9
How to Detect a Widespread Internet Outage?
Causes of widespread outages
◦Power failure
◦Internet Service Provider failure (e.g. Comcast, Verizon)
◦Denial-of-Service attack by an adversary
Alternatives
◦Require participation in every vote
◦Design the remote participation web page to send an “I’m alive” message to
the voting system at frequent intervals
Yes No Abstain
10
How to Secure Votes Cast via the Internet?
Encrypt all messages
After each vote, display each vote received on a public web
page, and enable voters to report discrepancies
Report Discrepancy
11
How to Detect and Deter Proxy Voting?
Why?
◦Wayland voters were concerned that on-premises Electronic Voting would
enable proxy voting from Town Meeting floor
◦Remote participation enables proxy voting on a broader scale, e.g.
hundreds of “borrowed” devices used to pass a re-zoning Article
To deter proxy voting, petition the Massachusetts Legislature
to make it illegal
To detect proxy voting, use each voter’s smartphone or tablet
to perform 3-dimensional facial recognition
◦When checking in to a Town Meeting Session
◦Randomly throughout each Session
Why Facial Recognition?
Suppliers are tested by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
◦Accuracy: 99.95%
◦To authenticate, users move their device from an arms-length away to 1
foot away from their face, guided by an on-screen oval
◦The resulting 3D facial model is much less subject to race/gender/age
bias than the 2D matching algorithms used for law enforcement
Alternative authentication techniques fall short
◦GPS is impeded by metal roofs and beams, and can’t prevent proxy
voting by multiple residents of a home or occupants of an office
◦Manual verification via participant-to-staff video would require too many
staff members to verify significant numbers of remote participants
Failures can be resolved by participant-to-staff video
Privacy can be protected
◦Biometric data can be maintained on air-gapped storage except during
Town Meeting Sessions
◦Biometric data can be expunged after the last Town Meeting Session
12
13
Voters
Friction-free user experience
Deter Proxy Voting
•3-dimensional face recognition detects proxies
•Legal Consequences discourage attempts
Internet
Voting System
Vote Tampering Adversary
- All messages are encrypted
- Realtime Audit detects changed votes
- If detected, revert to “on premises”
Disruptive Adversary
- Participation Monitoring detects attacks
- If detected, revert to “on premises”
Technical Solutions for Remote Participation
Remote participation in Open Town Meeting is not legal
◦Remote participation in Representative Town Meeting has been made legal
◦State Senator Rausch is drafting a Bill to legalize remote participation in
Open Town Meeting during the Covid-19 Emergency
◦Wayland’s Board of Selectmen proposes to petition the Legislature to
permanently legalize remote participation in Open Town Meeting
Proxy voting in Open Town Meeting is not explicitly illegal
◦Wayland’s Board of Selectmen proposes to petition the Legislature make
proxy voting a misdemeanor
14
Legal Impediments to Remote Participation
Identify towns interested in remote participation
Identify voting system providers interested in supporting
remote participation
◦Option Technologies has reviewed preliminary requirements
Engage with the Massachusetts Moderators Association
Engage with the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association
Petition the Massachusetts Legislature to
◦permanently legalize remote participation in Open Town Meeting
◦make proxy voting a misdemeanor
15
Next Steps
Introduction
Technical Impediments to Remote Participation
Legal Impediments to Remote Participation
Next Steps
16
Agenda