Tuesday, June 23, 2009

(continued meeting from Monday, June 22, 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 (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)

Absent: Sam Liao

Mr. Nebenzhal called the meeting to order at 7:10 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 board at this time

Mr. Nebenzhal stated that the meeting tonight is a continuation of the suspended meeting of June 22^nd.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Continue Discussion on Members’ Thoughts on the Composition of the Executive Side of Government as well as the Advisory and Regulatory Boards/Committees with Respect to Legislative Design

Recap of June 22^nd:

The meeting opened with a discussion on ruling out certain forms of legislative/executive alignment that were not worthy of further consideration (i.e. council/mayor form of government). There was a fair amount of consensus not to consider the council/mayor form of government, as it would eliminate the Board of Selectmen. There was strong sentiment among the members to retain the Board of Selectmen as the chief executive authority. A Town Administrator would b e appointed by the Board of Selectmen and have duties allocated to him/her. Legislative side, executive side, advisory and regulatory sides of government were also discussed. The last point of discussion was the scope of a town administrator, town manager, and chief executive secretary of the town.

Discussion for June 23^rd:

Mr. Curran briefly outlined a model city charter, which has a mayor and council.

Mr. Curran explained that the Board of Selectmen sets policy and the Town Administrator implements the policy. S. Peck questioned how much policy is inherent in the decision-making process. A. Nebenzahl stated that members should come to an understanding of what is meant by policy. S. Peck – Town Administrator creates budget and that is creating policy. Mr. Curran explained that the Board of Selectmen direct the Town Administrator to create a budget within the frameworks created by Priorities Committee, etc. Elected individuals make policy. S. Peck - long-range planning is essential. P. Pietal – policy may come out of planning. M. Curran – the plan is the implementation of a policy.

There was a lengthy discussion on policy and planning. S. Peck – asked members to be mindful of ways in which policy is formulated. Mr. Nebenzahl asked members for their thoughts on delegation of authority – i.e. Board of Selectmen, Town Administrator, etc. P. Izzo – examine Brookline’s and Saugus’ model.

There was a lengthy discussion on who should have appointing authority. A. Nebenzahl asked members to confine discussion to department heads first. A. Garf explained the screening committee’s process for hiring. M. Curran explained that generally a town administrator appoints employees that report to him/her on a daily basis.

C. Tuck – prefers that town administrator appoint department heads

P. Pietal – not 100% sure – leaning toward C. Tuck’s opinion

A. Garf – agrees with C. Tuck – prefers that town administrator appoint department heads with “advise an consent” by the Board of Selectmen

S. Peck - would like to see a role where Board of Selectmen make final appointments upon the recommendation of the town administrator - feels the vetting process is weakened by the town administrator making appointments

P. Izzo – agrees with C. Tuck – prefers that town administrator appoint department heads

A. Nebenzahl – inclined to agree with S. Peck but town administrator shall collaborate with the Board of Selectmen on hiring of department heads

P. Arguimbau – would like a member of the Board of Selectmen to be on screening committees

M. Curran stated there can be two levels of review: 1) confirm by Board of Selectmen 2) reject by Board of Selectmen. A lengthy discussion ensued on possible language for the draft charter, which would include language such as: “The Town Administrator shall have the power to appoint all positions for which there are no provisions in the Charter subject to rejection by the Board of Selectmen.” Members discussed the interpretative language difference of approval/rejection by the Board of Selectmen.

M. Curran stated that implicit language on appointments can by incorporated into a piggyback by-law. Members discussed the make-up and process of a screening committee.

P. Izzo cautioned members not to assume that there would always be a collegial relationship between the town administrator and the Board of Selectmen. Members should consider what would be the ideal mechanism and create a process that works well. Members agreed that Sharon’s current process works well and the process would only need “tweaking”.

There was a lengthy discussion on the language of: approve, reject or confirmation or rejection by the Board of Selectmen and how the process works with either approve or reject.

A. Garf – confirmation

P. Izzo - rejection

P. Pietal – no decision

P. Arguimbau – confirmation or rejection

A. Marsers – rejection

C. Tuck k- confirmation

S. Peck – confirmation or rejection

A. Nebenzahl - confirmation

There was not a consensus by members for language.

Mr. Nebezahl asked Suzi Peck to draft a provision that would effectuate what she was attempting to articulate relative to the confirm or reject language. There will be further discussion on this at the June 29^th meeting.

A discussion followed on who hires/fires employees that answer to appointed boards – i.e. Conservation Commission, Board of Health, etc. and unpaid citizens managing employees of the town.

In order to move the process along, Mr. Nebenzahl appointed Allen Garf, Suzi Peck and Paul Pietal to review the relationships among department heads and professional people that consult with boards/committees and formulate a baseline proposal. It was the consensus of the members that department heads should have responsibility for their staff.

Mr. Nebenzahl asked members to assess what needs to be addressed/discussed. P. Izzo opined that members were becoming too focused on Sharon’s current procedures. S. Peck suggested that members should proceed forward by building off of Sharon’s success. A. Garf suggested that members review Saugus’ charter and adapt and modify language to suit Sharon. P. Arguimbau stated that in her opinion Sharon is working well.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Nebenzahl stated that discussion for June 29^th would focus on the advisory side of town government and further discuss the legislative side of government. There will also be discussion at the June 29^th meeting on the role of the Planning Board and whether it should remain one board with enhanced powers or if it should be split with a board for long- range planning and a board for town sub-division oversight. He asked members to formulate a “to do” list and forward it to him.

A. Marsters informed the members that Bob Levin from the Library Trustees would like to meet with the Commission at a future meeting.

The next meeting of the Charter Commission is scheduled for June 29^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: (Pietal/Garf Moved to adjourn. Vote was eight 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