HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 08 24 2010_201402041900204131
ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 24TH, 2010
AT 10:30 AM, CONFERENCE ROOM, 2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
Final Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Peter Boyce, Caroline Ellis, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Wendy McCrae, Mike
Misurelli, Richard Ray, Lee Saperstein, Ernest Steinauer, and Lucinda Young
Members Absent: Cormac Collier, David Fronzuto, Seth Rutherford
Guests: Rick Atherton, Doug Smith, Whitey Willauer, John Wisentaner
Featured Guest: State Representative Tim Madden
Others: Jim Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
1. Call to Order
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:31 am.
2. Review and Approval of Preliminary Agenda
The meeting preliminary agenda had been distributed prior to the meeting via e‐mail and was
introduced at the meeting for discussion. Ms. Young solicited comments regarding said agenda. There
were no comments and/or edits raised and the agenda was accepted as distributed.
3. Review and Approval of Minutes of August 10th Meeting
The draft meeting minutes from August 10, 2010 had been distributed prior to today’s meeting via e‐
mail. Ms. Young also had sent a copy of the draft minutes to Dr. Ebdon and Mary Owen for their
comments, which had not yet been received by the time the draft minutes were forwarded to Work
Group (WG) members. There was a consensus of the WG members that comments received from Dr.
Ebdon and Mary Owen should be reviewed by all members prior to being incorporated into ‘final’
meeting minutes. Also, Chair Young had asked Dr. Ebdon and Ms. Owen if they would be willing to
review the Draft BMPs developed by the WG and their response was ‘yes’. Chair Young indicated that
she would like this response put in the minutes. Mr. Saperstein suggested that all comments be put into
a final copy of the minutes which would be distributed by e‐mail and approved by e‐mail vote of the
WG. It was felt that this procedure would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. An e‐mail vote is not
appropriate, rather, it should be taken at the next regular meeting. The draft meeting minutes will be
distributed to everyone and then voted upon at the September 7th meeting.
4. Chair’s Report; Comments from the Work Group
Chair Young stated that since the previous meeting, she has reviewed all meeting minutes and she
expressed her appreciation of the work completed to date and the fact that everyone has kept to task in
spite of busy summer schedules. The WG has stayed on track and will come up with recommendations.
Ms. Young suggested scheduling a meeting in late September‐early October to work on the material for
2
a whole day. There was a consensus of Work Group members that such a meeting would be beneficial
and good productive work at such a meeting would produce a marked‐up document that could be
distributed for review within the WG. This seems like a good idea and acts as a deadline for all sub‐
groups to accomplish their tasks. Representative Madden wondered how engaged the Work Group had
been with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and recommended keeping them informed about the process
and progress with Article 68 material. Mr. Willauer suggested a joint meeting between the Work Group
and the BOS so that the details of the WG product could be reviewed and discussed. Mr. Saperstein
suggested that WG present a short report to the BOS, mention the extensive meeting and then arrange
for a longer meeting with the BOS as a follow‐up.
Announcement made by Ms. Young: A Harbor Forum will be held at the Coffin School today at 4pm; the
forum is being sponsored by ReMain Nantucket and the Nantucket Community Association. Various
individuals conducting work on the water quality and health of the harbor will present a brief overview
of work currently being conducted.
Mr. Lucas reported that the BMP sub group met on Monday, August 23rd, at the Nantucket Land Council
office. Individuals present included Mr. Lucas, Mr. Collier, Mr. Misurelli, Mr. Dylan Wallace, Mr.
Wisentaner, and Ms. Young. The sub group compiled a Table of Contents for the BMP document; a copy
of the Table of Contents was distributed to members of the Work Group and is provided as an
addendum to these meeting minutes. The BMP sub group plans to have the BMP sections completed in
draft form by September 8th and then the draft sections will be complied for review. The BMP work
group will meet again on September 14th to review the draft document.
Mr. Steinauer distributed copies of Appendix 7 ‐ Watershed Designation from the Nantucket and
Madaket Harbors Action Plan, said copies of which had been given to him by Mr. Fronzuto prior to
today’s meeting. This document provides information related to strategies and activities within
watersheds. A copy of this document is included as an addendum to these meeting minutes.
Mr. Boyce mentioned that an educational brochure provided at the point of sale of fertilizer products
would provide application information for home‐owners appropriate for Nantucket situation.
5. Discussion with State Representative Tim Madden regarding legislative aspects of WG charge.
State Representative Tim Madden was in attendance at today’s meeting to discuss legislative aspects of
the charge presented to the Article 68 WG.
Representative Madden suggested parallel courses for the current process, whether in the form of a
Home Rule Petition or a Bylaw change. There were several reasons for him suggesting this course of
action including (1) a Bylaw change is easier, just a single review process by the state’s Attorney General,
and (2) a Home Rule Petition never is guaranteed to pass and there are a number of steps. Regardless
of which process is followed, the item in question will end up in Boston for review and a decision.
Representative Madden provided a brief overview of the legislative process. The legislative sessions in
Boston are 2 years in length. A new session starts in January. Over the course of a 2‐year session, a
total of 7,000‐8,000 bills are introduced. The average bill that gets passed may take 5 years or more for
review, modification and passage; only about 10 percent of the total bills introduced get passed.
3
A Home Rule Petition begins with a Town warrant article that, generally, is introduced in the January
session. All of the bills that are introduced go into a hopper and the Rules Committee determines which
particular committee should hear (review) the subject bill. After a decision is rendered by the House
side, there must be concurrence with Senate side as far as the committee selection process. Once a bill
gets assigned, hearings generally start in February‐March; most bills are heard then, some are heard a
year later – it is based upon numbers. In our case, the bill probably would end up in Natural Resources
or in Municipalities, both of which are joint committees, i.e. they have members from both the House
and Senate. When a particular committee holds a hearing on the bill, it is the only opportunity for the
public to express concern or support. If the bill is moved out of committee positively, it goes to a second
committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and then goes to ‘Third Reading’. This (Third
Reading) is where legal counsel gets involved and reviews the bill looking for red flags. If the bill gets
through this process, then it goes ‘engrossed’ to the Senate side. There is no first reading on the Senate
side since that already has occurred. The bill usually goes to Senate Ways and Means Committee and
then to the ‘Third Reading’, as on the House side. If there is disagreement between House counsel and
Senate counsel, which is common, then suggested changes are made on the House side and the bill is
voted upon. The bill then is sent back to the Senate for a vote. If passed, the bill goes back to the House
for enactment and then to the Senate for enactment and then to the Governor’s desk for signature.
Representative Madden estimated that the Article 68 WG material, in the form of a Home‐Rule Petition,
probably would take 4 years for the review and passage process. Maybe the process could occur in one
session if we were lucky. This particular effort has the ‘eyes and ears’ of folks in Boston; they know that
something will be coming from Nantucket and they are aware and sensitive to the concerns and goal of
the WG. They also know that other town and localities have similar issues.
Mr. Atherton wondered if the chances for success of a Home Rule Petition or other such document
would be greater if a number of local governments joined forces for the presentation and review
process in Boston.
Mr. Saperstein suggested that we have Nantucket Town Counsel, who will be in attendance at our next
meeting, study the Webster case and discuss the Webster decision and explain the details to us.
Representative Madden suggested that it is very beneficial to provide common documents which
describe situations where other states/ municipalities have resolved similar issues. The hearings that
take place along the way with individual bills will provide red flags which point to issues that need to be
addressed in order to get a successful piece of legislation.
Mr. Misurelli asked Representative Madden if he was familiar with bill # S380 which involves the MA
Association of Lawn Care Professionals. Under this bill, Mary Owen (UMass) would set the BMPs for
local towns. Representative Madden stated that this bill did not seem to have a great deal of support.
Mr. Saperstein suggested that the WG should meet with the appropriate people in state government to
discuss the issues at hand. Representative Madden stated that folks wouldn’t meet with us until we
have something filed and then we should arrange to meet.
Whether a local Bylaw change or Home Rule Petition, Representative Madden suggested that the WG
move forward with both options and see which one fares the best at the end of the process; that’s how
the decision will be made.
4
Chair Young suggested that we dedicate a single meeting to education since it (education) seems to be
the most significant factor in the eventual success of our endeavor.
Once the draft document is further along and more substantial, Representative Madden would be
willing to review. He also stated that collaboration and cooperation with MA EOEA (Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs) will be important for the WG and the process.
6. Progress reports from sub groups
Chair Young provided a breakdown of the sub groups and members of each including:
HomeOwner/ Public Education: Boyce, Ellis, McCrae, Young
Professional Education/Drafting Updated BMPs: Collier, Lucas, Misurelli, Rutherford
Legal Questions and Review: LaFarge, Saperstein
Review of the Science: Boyce, Saperstein, Steinauer
Tests, Licenses, Accreditation: Collier, Lucas, Ray, Young
Chair Young asked Mr. Saperstein to think about a draft press release for future distribution.
There was continued discussion regarding a separate meeting devoted to education following the Legal
Counsel meeting on September 7th. A date also is needed for the whole‐day session that probably will
have to occur on a Saturday. There also is a date needed for a joint meeting with the BOS.
Mr. Steinauer suggested that a reviewed, edited and updated document from the WG could be sent to
the MA Audubon group for review.
7. Brief Discussion of Agenda Items for Next Meeting.
Chair Young asked WG members to solicit questions or information that might be appropriate for Town
Counsel to address when in attendance at the September 7th meeting.
8. Adjourn
MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. LaFarge, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to adjourn the meeting. The
motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 am.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, September 7th ‐ 10:30 am at 2 Fairgrounds Road
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary
5
6