OPEN SESSION
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
Administration Building
One School Street
Sharon, MA 02067
Present: Peg Arguimbau, Allen Garf, Paul Izzo, Abigail Marsters, Suzi Peck, Paul Pietel and Colleen Tuck
Absent: Andrew Nebenzahl, Sam Liao
Mr. Pietel, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Approve Minutes
Mr. Pietel asked for a motion to approve the Open Session minutes from the April 13th meeting.
Approve Minutes
MOTION: (Tuck/Garf) Moved to approve the Open Session minutes from the meeting of April 13, 2009 as drafted, submitted. Vote was six in the affirmative. Paul Pietel abstained.
Acknowledge Correspondence
There was no correspondence to come before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Pietel stated that the purpose of this evening’s meeting is to engage in a discussion on the legislative branch.
Talking points provided by Mr. Curran to generate the course of tonight’s discussion:
• In your opinion, what business should the legislative branch be expected to perform?
• Do you believe the legislative body is the appropriate place where discussion/debate takes place concerning key issues involving the town?
• What business do you believe the legislative branch should be expected to deal with:
- Adoption of all ordinances/by-laws
- Adoption of zoning and other land use regulations only
- Appropriation of all sums of money
- Adoption of authorizations to borrow, or otherwise pledge the credit of the municipality
- Approve any petitions to the legislature for special laws, as needed
- Other
Is the size of the body an issue?
What do you feel would be a “workable” size for a legislative body exercising the powers and performing the duties you believe are appropriate for the body?
How should the membership of the body be determined?
- Open to all voters, or elected membership?
- Election at large, election from districts
- What is an appropriate until from which to be elected?
How should matters come before the legislative body?
How frequently do you believe the legislative body should meet?
How long should the legislative branch “sit” when it does meet?
Do you believe the Town Meeting – as it presently functions – is adequate to meet the legislative needs of the Town of Sharon?
Do you believe the Town Meeting can be restructured to meet the contemporary needs of the Town of Sharon?
What three things would you do, immediately, if it were in your power to change any of the procedures associated with Town Meeting?
What do you feel is the single biggest obstacle to the success of the Town Meeting in meeting the current needs of the Town of Sharon?
Mr. Pietel opened the discussion by stating that areas of discussion could be Open Town Meeting with decisions made at Town Meeting that directly effect – budgets, zoning and quality of life.
Discussions included:
• How budget decisions directly quality of life.
• Policies are made by the Chief Executive Officers of the town – i.e. Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen.
• Statutes that define power and policies such as by-laws must be approved by the Attorney General before they take effect.
• If Open Town Meeting is retained, how to stream-line the process (i.e. consent agenda).
• The problem of “stacking” votes that occurs at Open Town Meeting.
• If Representative Town Meeting is adopted, how to maintain citizen interest and participation at Town Meeting.
• The process of being elected a Representative for Town Meeting was discussed.
• How to better education the citizenship prior to voting at Town Meeting.
• The pros and cons of deliberative, decisions reached at Open Town Meeting.
• The decline in attendance over the years at Open Town Meeting.
• How to address the indifference of the voters.
• Whether votes would be more disenfranchised with Open Town Meeting or Representative Town Meeting.
• Whether citizens become involved in town government through other agencies, sources other than attendance at Open Town Meeting.
• The free exchange of discussion and ideas at Open Town Meeting.
• What is best for the citizens of Sharon?
The May 11th meeting will focus discussion on the Executive Branch of government.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: (Marsters/Garf) Moved to adjourn. Vote was seven in the affirmative.
Open Session was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted on behalf of the Charter Committee by: Helen Campanario, Recording Secretary to the Charter Commission