Monday, June 1, 2009

Administration Building

One School Street

Sharon, MA 02067

Present: Peg Arguimbau, Allen Garf, Paul Izzo, Abigail Marsters, Andrew Nebenzahl, Suzi Peck, Paul Pietal and Colleen Tuck

Absent: Paul Izzo, Sam Liao

Mr. Nebenzhal, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Approve Minutes

There were no minutes to approve at this time.

Acknowledge Correspondence

There was no correspondence to come before the Commission at this time.

DISCUSSION ITEMS – Overview of: Terms of Office, Board of Selectmen, Referendum and Initiative Provisions, Potential Recall Provisions

Recall Provisions

Mr. Nebenzahl opened the discussion by asking Mr. Curran to present an overview of a typical recall procedure from the surrounding communities of Saugus and Mashpee. Procedures are as follows:

Town Clerk prepares recall forms upon receiving approximately 15% of registered, voter signatures. An official cannot be subject to a recall until the official has served six months in the position. The recall provision should only be used for extreme circumstances, i.e. moral turpitude, etc.

There was a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of recall provisions.

A. Garf does not favor recall language being written into the Charter.

C. Tuck does not favor recall language being written into the Charter and should language be incorporated into the Charter, the “bar for recall” should be set very high.

P. Pietal was in agreement with C. Tuck.

A. Marsters would agree to recall language in the Charter providing the language outlines specific, valid reasons for a recall.

P. Arguimbau does not favor recall language being written into the Charter and should language be incorporated, favors requiring 15% voter signatures.

S. Peck is in favor of “checks and balances” – would favor 15% voter signature recall language in the Charter and two separate elections (one for recall; one for replacement).

A. Nebenzahl was in agreement with S. Peck that strong “checks and balances” should be built into the Charter. However, Mr. Nebenzahl prefers a lower threshold than 15% voter signatures.

Mr. Curran was asked to survey surrounding communities for required number of registered voter signatures and the length of time allowed to obtain the signatures.

There was a discussion on whether it was necessary to include recall language for appointed positions. At present, there is not a mechanism to remove an appointed official for good cause. Currently, the official would serve out his/her appointment (3 yr. term) and not be recommended for reappointment. It was stressed that regulatory boards need protection from recall. There is the possibility that a recall could be generated by citizens who disagreed with a decision rendered by a regulatory board. It was the consensus of the members that even though appointed boards should be held to the same high standards as elected positions, it was not necessary to included recall language for appointed boards. It would be the responsibility of the appointing authority to remove an appointed official for good cause. The law defines “good cause”.

Pros and cons of a recall provision:

Pros Cons

Without recall provision, there is no The threat of a recall could be so onerous

Mechanism to remove someone from that it would inhibit an employee to

office until their term is up. execute their responsibilities effectively.

Formalizes the “checks and balances” Can be used as a political tool to oust an

process for town officials. official for capricious reasons.

Discussion – Board of Selectmen

Mr. Nebenzahl opened the discussion by stating that a warrant article at a recent town meeting calling for the Board of Selectmen to be increased from three to a five-member board was defeated by one vote. Mr. Curran stated that a difficulty of a three-member board is that if one board member is absent, there could be an impasse on important issues. A five-member board would provide broader representation.

A. Garf – prefers three-member board – more transparency with three members.

C. Tuck – prefers three-member board – more collaborative open process with three members.

P. Pietal – would be in favor of a five-member board – more insight on issues with five members.

A. Marsters – would lean toward a five-member board – broader perspective with five members.

P. Arguimbau – prefers three-member board – harder to present views with five members.

S. Peck – would lean toward a five-member board – harder to share responsibility with three members.

A. Nebenzahl – prefers three-member board - there is a greater potential for obstructionism with five members.

It was noted that with a three-member board, it is difficult to unseat an incumbent at election time. Until the role of the Board of Selectmen has been defined, it is difficult to come to a definitive decision on the size of the Board. Currently, the Board of Selectmen is the executive body.

Term Limits

Mr. Nebenzahl asked the members if term limits for office should be considered, which would limit successive terms for officials. By state statute, the Planning Board and Housing Authority have five-year terms. Mr. Curran informed the members that case law states that an appointment cannot be longer than the term of the person who is making the appointment. It was noted that the Commission has not finalized what boards/committees should be elected and what boards/committees should be appointed. A. Marsters will research for possible conditions that specifically call for the election of the library board of trustees.

Referendum Initiative

Mr. Curran presented a brief overview of referendum initiatives from the towns of Longmeadow, Plymouth and Dedham, which have the Open Town Meeting form of government. There was a discussion on the procedure. It was the consensus of the members that a referendum initiative would be more effective with a Representative Town Meeting or Council forms of government and would not be necessary with an Open Town Meeting form of government.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was a brief discussion on clarification of “correspondence”. Emails generated to Commission members from another member for additional discussion would not be considered correspondence. Members of the community are encouraged to send their thoughts and opinions to the Charter Commission via email at: www.chartercommission@townofsharon.org

There was a discussion on the agenda for the June 8^th meeting. Mr. Nebenzahl is concerned that we have not sufficiently addressed strategic planning and other long-range issues.

The next meeting of the Charter Commission is scheduled for June 8^th at 7:00 p.m.

There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion to adjourn.

MOTION: (Garf/Arguimbau) Moved to adjourn. Vote was seven in the affirmative.

Open Session was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Submitted on behalf of the Charter Committee by: Helen Campanario, Recording Secretary to the Charter Commission