Minutes of Charter Commission Meeting August 4, 2009

Present: Andy Nebenzahl – Chair, Allen Garf, Paul Pietal, Mike Curran- Consultant, Abigail Marsters, Suzi Peck, Peg Arguimbau

The chair opened the meeting with a question as to the groups thoughts on publishing the draft twice if all the documents were ready on time. We’ll have it out on Labor Day or the weekend before and many folks may be away. We can also publish the draft as its own document in the paper. Discussion resulted in agreement with publishing it in the paper as its own document. The chair will check into the costs for that.

Discussion of Articles 1 & 2

Mr. Curran submitted to members changes to Articles 1 and 2 on a two-page sheet – incorporated as per sheet in the document. Sections 1-7 and 1-8 not necessary. Positive response and Ms. Marsters brought up a “diversity officer” who attended interviews and wondered if we needed that here? Mr. Curran not aware of the bylaw. Ms. Peck questioned whether School Committee needed to be mentioned and Mr. Curran said “No.” She also questioned the administrative service - almost makes it a separate entity and suggested re-ordering it or deleting the administrative section. Decided to re-order it.

Mr. Izzo asked if we had decided on the “Steering committee”. The chair said we had not and we could discuss the name – had been called that in past discussions and just stayed that way.

Mr. Curran explained the difference between uppercase and lowercase “general laws” – specific vs. general. May have comments about that but have Mr. Curran do overview first. Ms. Peck questioned about the Initiative measure and Mr. Curran thought we might delete that. Discussed about how to utilize it and may need to refer to report. The chair stated that many things may need to be clarified in the report. Since we are doing something different, we can have less that 100 signatures required for Special town Meeting. Need to change if we want to then make the change in the definitions. Mr. Garf stated that we needed to be clear that petitions did not always go to town Meeting. Mr. Curran preferred to strike and most folks agreed so 1-9-g is deleted.

1-9-j    Ms. Peck raised an issue with the “Multiple member Body” – do we need a definition of subset for multiple appointed boards?

1-9-l – question by Mr. Pietal about “other provision” reference. Mr. Curran explained sometime the board creates a different qualification like 2/3rds “supermajority”

1-9-m  delete “elected” and delete (…)

1-9-o   new revision by Mr. Curran. Review Petition – the words “review petition” shall mean a petition brought by voters protesting the action by the steering committee on a proposed article and asking that the matter be referred to a town meeting session for resolution.

1-9-r    moved “maintained and managed by the town” to end of the sentence.

The Chair asked for a motion to approve Article 1 in its amended form for inclusion in the preliminary draft Charter. Ms. Tuck moved and Ms. Marsters seconded Approved 8-0-0

Discussion of Article 2

Mr. Izzo began by stressing the need for clarity – especially the concept that calling a Special town Meeting can be done by 200 voters, but 360 are needed for a town meeting to appeal a steering committee decision. This is very different.  The Chair called it an anomaly. A petition article by 10 voters goes to Steering Committee. That committee can reject the article, now 360 signatures need to be gathered to get the article to Town Meeting. This may not be explicit in the text. Mr. Izzo asked for folks to read this – does 2-5 trump 2-14-g? The Chair stated that perhaps we don’t need “Special Town Meeting” so should keep it. Mr. Curran said the change sheet he provided –Article 2, 2-5 addresses this. Mr. Izzo understood. Mr. Pietal asked about the urgency issue and 200 signatures. Trust the Selectmen to be judicious in calling a town meeting. The Chair suggested we could add a town meeting to the schedule so there would never be more than four months to wait for one. Mr. Izzo brought up some grammatical issues – 

2-5       insert in the last line “either” before “by the steering committee or by a review petition     filed by voters.

And he questioned about doing other business at a town meeting like “stopping 95” but that would require a public hearing first before it could even be discussed at town meeting

Mr. Pietal questioned 2-4 line 32 – add ‘not” after shall and also delete “which” and “for so it reads – The second such meeting shall have the same powers of an annual town meeting except as follows:

a) it shall not include the election of town officers

b) it shall not include the determination of all other matters to be decided by ballot of the voters.

The second meeting shall be held during the last six calendar months on a date fixed by the Select Board.

Mr. Curran indicated in 2-7 we should delete the reference to Chapter 39 – if there was a concern that the board would need 10 signatures. The section will read: “All subjects……select board. The select board shall receive all petitions addressed to it which request the submission of particular subject matter to the town meeting whether from town boards or committees, or from citizen petitions signed by 10 or more voters. All…………particular subject shall be submitted as a separate article. Requests for……..of this article.”

Line 60             period after “proposal” – delete the rest.;

Line 70             change to “proposal to be forwarded to the chairperson”. Delete Chair of finance.

Delete second sentence of 2-7-c

2-8       good thing that pertinent “non-voters” have right to speak without voting by the Moderator.

2-10     delete “taxpayer’

2-11     delete and add to 2-12 Steering committee.

Follow what the Secretary of State does for pro/con information on all articles for the booklet that gets sent to homes. Mr. Curran will check on that lay out. Mr. Garf asked about both sides getting equal time. The chair thought that was taken care of in the by-law, but Mr. Pietal pointed out that it was encouraged, not mandated. Ms. Tuck added she thought t should be required, not encouraged. Mr. Pietal said the by law would be better. This language too narrow as suggested. Ms. Peck added that since town meetings now will be more contentious, it will be the Moderator’s discretion that both sides have been aired adequately. Ms. Marsters asked which trumps which? The charter trumps the by-law so all the more reason to be broader. Ms. Tuck said that there should be faith in the Moderator to exercise his/her judgment for adequate opportunities. Also prepared to recognize folks because of the “pre-town meeting” meeting.

Mr. Izzo thought that the current Moderator struggled with the motion to cut off debate – it’s cut off. Since we can do by laws that have the weight of the charter behind them maybe do one of each.. Ms. Tuck offered that perhaps the moderator thought he didn’t have the authority to do it.

The Chair offered a middle ground- perhaps do this in a piggy-back by law instead of the Charter. Ms. Tuck did not understand why there couldn’t be both sides presenting at town meeting and Mr. Curran offered that he would take a crack at a bylaw to incorporate this.

Mr. Izzo spoke of concern about the time frame. Discussion followed about dates that warrant is received.

Line 118           …shall be forwarded to each resident….”

Mr. Izzo wondered if we could get the Board of selectmen authority to use the web for notification. Ms. Tuck said the emergency nature of an issue can be dealt with by agreeing to reconvene at a time two weeks hence. Ms. Peck said there will always be situations that don’t allow for all the info to be gotten. Mr. Curran pointed out lines 248-250 – next town meeting held 30 or more days…The Chair suggested redraft of section 2-11.

Mr. Izzo requested a clarification of lines 247-260 and Mr. Curran said he will redraft to be sure it makes sense.

Section 2-12 – Mr. Pietal asked when we set who gets which term and mr. Curran answered that it would be done in the transitional provisions. Mr. Izzo wondered if the first sentence represented the powers of Town meeting, do we need to mention the Mass. General laws for town meetings? Ms. Marsters thought that it didn’t because town meeting could change things. Mr. Curran suggested adding a sentence about the vote of the steering committee having the power of town meeting.

Ms. Tuck wondered why we were only increasing the steering committee by a precinct person when the precincts increased – should also be adding an “at large” person as weel. Polled the group and it was agreed to make that change. Mr. Izzo suggested the language that as the number of precincts increased then the number of at large spots would increase by the same amount.

Section 2-13

Line 141           add “proposed” before “for action by…”

Line 153           should we add town employees? No. Ms Tuck believes that employees being voting members is a problem. Should be non-voting members.

Section 2-14-g-2          add “posted” after filed and “on or before the close of business on the 21^st day following the date….. Mr. Izzo wondered if there wasn’t a wayu to fix it and suggested 21 days unless you fail to ask within 10 days – the no action possible. The chair wondered what it was that couldn’t be done in two weeks so the group settled on 10 days for a total of 21 days.

Mr. Izzo leaves the meeting at 10:40PM

Review of Article 7

7-6       Change to appointing authority for certificate and in the presence of the town clerk or designee.

7-8-b  Substitute Journal with the word Minutes.

7-8-e   Vote in affirmative needs to be unanimous

7-9       new and controversial

The Chair discussed what was left to do –

            book a place for the public meeting

            draft the preliminary report

Decided to ask members to draft a section of the report.

The chair will do Art. 1

Ms. Peck will do Art. 2 and 7

Ms. Arguimbau will do Art. 3

Ms. Tuck will do Art. 4 and 5

Mr. Pietal will do Art. 6

The group wondered about the timing for the piggy-back by laws to be done and Mr. Curran suggested that the Charter be in place first and the preliminary report be out. He pointed out that the Commission needs to address which issues need piggy-back bylaws. He stated he would be sending out Art 8 for our review.

The Chair reminded that all notes on articles should be sent to him and Mr.Curran. no more “wordsmithing”.

Adjourned 11:05PM      Moved  Mr. Garf                    Seconded  Ms. Martsers     

voted unanimously

Respectfully submitted, Peg Arguimbau