OPEN SESSION
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
Administration Building
One School Street
Sharon, MA 02067
Present: Peg Arguimbau (arrived at 8:25 p.m.), Allen Garf, Paul Izzo, Andrew Nebenzahl, Suzi Peck, Paul Pietal, Colleen Tuck (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Absent: Sam Liao, Abigail Marsters
Mr. Nebenzahl called the Open Session meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Approve Minutes
Mr. Nebenzahl asked for motions to approve the following Open Session minutes of September 15, 2009 as drafted and submitted.
MOTION: (Garf/Pietal) Moved to approve the Open Session minutes from the September 15, 2009 meeting as drafted and submitted. Vote was five in the affirmative.
Acknowledge Correspondence
Mr. Izzo stated that there were a number of correspondences to come before the Commission:
• Robert Levin
• A. Karger
• Eli Hauser
• Arnold Wallenstein
• Ken Olum
• Craig Edwards
• Fred Clay
• Richard Gray
• Barbara Dunham
• Susan Price
• Paul Lauenstein
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discuss Reaction to Draft Report
Mr. Nebenzahl opened the discussion by asking members to weigh-in on their reactions to the questions and comments raised by the approximately 40-50 citizens in attendance at the recent September 21st open hearing.
P. Pietal felt that there was a good turnout of citizens and was appreciative of the comments. It would appear that the Steering Committee concept is problematic for most citizens with their belief that there would be too much power in the hands of nine people. He feels that the group should further discuss the Steering Committee concept. The Charter needs to be more fully explained to the citizens. His experience has been that when he has explained the Charter to citizens, their reaction has been more positive. The Commission must decide what would be best for the Town. Areas that could be tweaked – elected vs. appointed, lowering the 3% thresh-hold, moving to by-laws for certain issues.
S. Peck felt that the majority of citizens who attended the public hearing want to preserve the present form of Open Town Meeting, that they want to retain elected rather than appointed boards and would appreciate a “side by side” explanation – what is different and what stays the same. She believes that there must be compromises made in order to insure the passage of the Charter – i.e. retain elected bodies and OTM. With the creation of another board with power there is a risk of four power centers in the town, which could be divisive and possibly make it difficult to conduct town business efficiently. The Charter Commission’s rationale needs to be fully explained to the citizens.
A. Garf agreed that the quality of input from the citizens was constructive and helpful but the Charter should continue to take a holistic view of the town and not react solely to the citizens who attended the public hearing – as many of the citizens present had their minds made up prior to the start of the hearing. He believes that the Commission should move forward with the present document with minor changes/modifications - such as should the Charter continue to include language that requires Library Trustees to be appointed rather than elected. He suggested that each board/committee should be reexamined. He is reluctant to give up on the Steering Committee concept.
P. Izzo stated that of the approximately 40 citizens who attended - 15 who spoke either negatively of the Steering Committee concept or favorably of retaining OTM in its present form - was not a surprise to him. He did not hear any principled arguments in favor of retaining OTM nor was there a defense of the low turnout at OTM (150 voters). There did not seem to be a constituency for the Steering Committee concept present at the hearing. Citizens that are in favor of abolishing OTM did not show up at the hearing. He believes that the proposed draft Charter has created a form of government that has made both sides unhappy. An alternative to OTM should be provided to the voters. Key issues could be tweaked. Possibly recommend a Representative Form of Town Meeting because it is not complicated and takes away the power from the nine-member Steering Committee.
S. Peck suggested lowering the percentage threshold for brining an article before TM. The focus should be on what needs to be fixed – i.e. need for long-range planning, town-wide facility maintenance, and role of the Town Administrator and consider leaving OTM in its current form.
A. Nebenzahl stated that of the 22 people who spoke at the public hearing, 17 were either present or former board members or hold office in the Town. The proposed Charter would alter the way Sharon’s town government operates. He was most surprised as to how many citizens were not aware of the public hearing. He queried as a way to reach the “silent majority” - if it was legal to mail a notice to each household in Sharon in reference to the proposed Charter. Mr. Curran did not recommend the town-wide mailing. Mr. Curran outlined for the members how to educate the public without violating any laws – i.e. messages on cable, website, etc. are acceptable. He believes that the Charter could be streamlined and presented in a way that the public would understand. Citizens believe that the Steering Committee would have too much authority. An organizational chart would be helpful as a way of explaining the proposal. Mr. Curran was asked what could be accomplished with by-laws without being imbeded into the Charter.
M. Curran stated that from what he observed at the public hearing there does not seem to be support for the proposed Charter and that given the restrictive time-line, members should devote time to the Steering Committee concept.
C. Tuck agreed with A. Garf relative to not making drastic changes to the proposed Charter – the Commission should move forward with the document. She stated that people active in town government made up the majority of the public hearing audience and they were not persuaded by what was presented. Citizens need to be educated as to why the Charter Commission made the decisions they did. She believes the draft proposal could be refined – not changed.
There was a discussion on the intent of members’ votes on each of the articles – was it a whole-hearted endorsement or was it a vote to move the process forward. Mr. Nebenzahl advised members that if they felt strongly about certain articles, they have the right to present a dissenting view that would be included in the final Charter presentation.
There was a Q&A with Mr. Curran on what legally can be in a Charter; what legally can be included in a by-law; the Steering Committee’s authority in reference to Town Meeting Articles (wording, changes, presentation, resolution, etc.) and how a by-law would be drafted and enacted.
Mr. Nebenzahl stated that at the October 5th meeting the members would review the points that should be readdressed – i.e. the Steering Committee, rethink the way the Steering Committee would be elected, elected vs. appointed boards/committees, lowering the percentage thresh-hold, town-wide facilities planning language, budget presentation by Town Administrator and the Superintendent of Schools. Members were asked to forward their suggestions via email to Mr. Pietal no later than October 2nd. A proposed timeline: meetings on October 5th, 15th, 19th and a possible public hearing on October 26th. There was a discussion on the effectiveness of another public hearing and the Commission’s ability to meet such a stringent timeline.
There was a discussion on eliminating the wording in the charter, Section 2-14 …… “with 0.5% of such voters coming from each of five precincts, will have to sign the petition.” There being no further discussion, Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion.
MOTION: (Pietal/Arguimbau) Moved that the Charter Commission eliminate the clause in reference to appeal process, which states “ 0.5% of such voters coming from each of five precincts, will have to sign the petition.” Vote was seven in the affirmative.
Following a discussion on reducing the 3% thresh-hold, it was the consensus of the members to schedule this as an agenda item at a subsequent meeting.
Following a discussion on appointed vs. elected, it was the consensus of the members to schedule this as an agenda item at a subsequent meeting.
It was suggested that a future agenda item should be the strength of the long-range planning language and the role of the budget in the process and the role of the Capital Outlay Committee and Priorities Committee.
P. Izzo suggested that for the Oct. 5th meeting members should list three items that they consider critical for discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS
Meeting schedule:
October 5th – Marlene Chused
October 15th
October 19th – School Committee
October 26th – Open Hearing
There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: (Garf/Peck) Moved to adjourn. Vote was seven in the affirmative.
Open Session was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
Submitted on behalf of the Charter Committee by: Helen Campanario, Recording Secretary to the Charter Commission