HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinancial 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