OPEN SESSION
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
Administration Building
One School Street
Sharon, MA 02067
Present: Peg Arguimbau, Allen Garf, Paul Izzo, Abigail Marsters (arrived after the meeting was called to order), Andrew Nebenzahl, Suzi Peck, Paul Pietal, Colleen Tuck
Absent: Sam Liao
Mr. Nebenzahl called the Open Session meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Open Forum
John Hitter, Chair of the Finance Committee, addressed the Commission and asked the members to consider incorporating into the proposed Charter a mechanism for the timely receipt and disposition of warrant articles. The current procedure/timeline does not allow the Finance Committee enough time to review all articles and render an informed decision/recommendation on warrant articles prior to Town Meeting.
There was a brief discussion with Mr. Hitter where the Commission explained how the Legislative Committee would operate and how the warrant process would work.
Mr. Hitter left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Approve Minutes
Mr. Nebenzahl stated that approval/discussion of the minutes would be deferred until the close of the meeting.
Acknowledge Correspondence
Mr. Nebenzahl read the email, received today 10/19, from the Attorney General’s Office, which was in response to an email sent by Mr. Nebenzahl. The A.G. stated that there would be another review of the proposed Charter after the changes, sited by the A.G., have been addressed/rectified.
Mr. Izzo stated that correspondence was received and he would report on them at the next meeting.
At this time, Dr. Barbara Dunham, Superintendent of Schools, Glenn Allen, School Committee Chair and Mitch Blaustein, School Committee member joined the meeting for the purpose of discussion their questions/concerns relative to language in the proposed Charter. Areas addressed:
• Dr. Dunham asked the members to consider how effective the Priorities Committee and Capital Outlay Committee has been when considering the structure of the Legislative Committee. It was her suggestion that the Commission consider having members from town committees/boards (who were not elected) on the Legislative Committee rather than create a whole new board where information must be presented. Mr. Izzo outlined the proposed role of the Legislative Committee. There was a lengthy discussion on streamlining the process.
• Dr. Dunham queried how the Commission determined that the Legislative Committee should consist of 17 members. S. Peck gave a detailed explanation on the formula used for arriving at that number.
• There was a discussion on why the language of “taxpayer” vs. “voter” was used in the Charter.
• Dr. Dunham asked how the Commission determined the language regarding the town-wide consolidation of maintenance that is in the Charter. Dr. Dunham does not favor the maintenance consolidation, as it is currently outlined/written. She asked that the members further discuss the maintenance consolidation Charter language. P. Pietal stated that the language states that overall maintenance for the town must be worked out between the Select Board and the Superintendent of Schools. Dr. Dunham stated that another consideration would be union issues if there were a merger of maintenance between the town and schools.
• There was a discussion on whether state statutes supercede the language in the Charter and suggested not incorporating such explicit language into the Charter, but to use language similar to, “May include the following, but not limited to…..”. S. Peck suggested the language should be reviewed to insure that the responsibilities of the School Department are clearly stated. C. Tuck suggested deleting the language in question and defer to state law language.
• Dr. Dunham asked the Commission to consider language clarification regarding 4.2 - Powers and Duties.
• Dr. Dunham asked the Commission to consider language clarification regarding the budget process and how and who presents their respective budgets. M. Curran stated that nothing in the proposed Charter takes away any rights from the Superintendent of Schools. P. Pietal stated that it is the intent of the Charter language to continue the collaborative budget effort that now exists between town/school boards and committees.
• There was a discussion on the draft time-line submitted by P. Pietal. Dr. Dunham outlined the current time-line being followed by the School Department pertaining to budget preparations. She stated that the current Charter language relative to the time-line for an appeal process is unrealistic. A. Nebenzahl stated that the Charter language would be reviewed for clarity.
• Mr. Allen stated that Dr. Dunham addressed most of his concerns/questions that were sent on behalf of himself as Chair and the School Committee members. Areas briefly touched on by Mr. Allen:
• He requested language clarification on the time-line for the appeal process.
• His request for a “flow chart” has already been addressed.
• His requested to require the Steering Committee act either affirmatively or negative on every article has already been addressed.
• He requested a clearer explanation of the role of the Finance & Audit Committee. P. Pietal stated that the Charter would not include detailed language and the process will not be mandated in the Charter.
Mr. Allen briefly addressed his October 5th email that he sent to the Commission as a Sharon resident and not the Chair of the School Committee.
• He requested clarification on whether the Legislative Committee has the authority to modify line items? Define line item. A. Nebenzahl stated that the Legislative Committee would have the authority to change the “bottom line” budget dollar amount. Mr. Izzo stated that the Legislative Committee would adhere to all state laws.
Mr. Nebenzahl informed Mr. Allen that a state statute requires an odd number for board/committee composition and asked M. Blaustein if a 5 or 7 member Committee is preferred. G. Allen – 7; M. Blaustein – 7. Dr. Dunham did not render an opinion. M. Curran was asked if a waiver request could be submitted for retention of a 6 member Committee. M. Curran said, “no” – he would not advise applying for a waiver.
Dr. Dunham, Mr. Allen and Mr. Blaustein left the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
Mr. Nebenzahl called for a 5-minute recess. The meeting was reconvene at 9:25 p.m.
Discussion of the Long-Range Planning Issue
At this time Mr. Eli Hauser, joined the meeting at this time to discuss the Town’s long-range planning. A. Nebenzahl stated that the mission of the Commission was to provide a process for long-range planning that is collaborative and inclusive.
Suggestions presented and discussed:
• Formalize the role and duties of the current Planning Board.
• Form a committee that has a similar composition as the Priorities Committee and Capital Outlay Committee.
• S. Peck presented her reasoning for forming a Long-Range Planning Committee, comprised of a representative from all town/school boards and committees, with an experienced planner to head the Committee who would take all individual long-range plans and create a master plan for the town. There was a lengthy discussion on why the current language in the draft Charter would be changed and what would be the benefit of putting people on a Long-Range Planning Committee who have little or no expertise in long-range planning.
A. Nebenzahl stated that under the existing proposed model, there is no mechanism for execution of long-range planning.
S. Peck opined that it has been her experience that the only time long-range planning works is when representatives from boards/committees serve on the Committee.
P. Izzo stated that the Long-Range Planning Committee could invite all boards/committees to meet with them annually so their long-range plans could be presented to the Committee.
Eli Hauser presented is opinion. He stated he is not a proponent for either suggestion – the current Charter language or what A. Nebenzahl and S. Peck are proposing at this evening’s meeting.
P. Izzo stated that the intent of the Charter language to have a group of individuals (Long-Range Planning Committee) to work with the Select Board on long-range planning.
P. Arguimbau outlined the success of the Community Preservation Committee and how they have worked collaboratively with other boards/committees in the town.
A. Garf stated that the mission should be separated from implementation – establish objectives that the town wants to achieve and find the right person to drive the process.
A. Nebenzahl would like to design a system that is more likely that the outcome would be more collaborative.
There was a lengthy discussion on the composition of the Long-Range Planning Committee under A. Nebenzahl’s and S. Peck’s proposal. Mr. Nebenzahl stated that it would be a “ground-up” effort as opposed to a “top down”.
Mr. Gould, a member of the audience, presented his view – long-range planning should be part of the Priorities Committee or Legislative Committee and a mission should be defined.
A straw vote was taken: In favor of changing the Charter language to reflect A. Nebenzahl’s and S. Peck’s proposal: Yes – P. Arguimbau, S. Peck, A. Nebenzahl. No – A. Garf, P. Izzo, C. Tuck, P. Pietal, A. Marsters.
Discussion came to a conclusion, as there was not a majority to support the proposal. Mr. Hauser left the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Discussion of Issues Held Over from the October 5th and October 15th Meetings:
- percentage threshold
- town-wide maintenance
- hiring process
- budget cycle
- specific issues raised by the School Committee and Dr. Dunham
Mr. Izzo stated that issues left over from the October 15th meeting, which were not voted on should be addressed immediately in order for Mr. Nebenzahl to respond in a responsible/responsive manner to the Attorney General’s Office.
1) Technicality of Town Moderator presiding over Legislative Committee meetings.
MOTION: (Izzo/Tuck) Moved to amend the language in the draft Charter proposal to provide that all meetings of the Legislative Committee will be presided over by the Town Moderator of Assistant Town Moderator. Yes vote: A. Nebenzahl, A. Garf, P. Izzo, C. Tuck, P. Pietal, A. Marsters, S. Peck. P. Arguimbau abstained.
2) Warrant issues
MOTION: (Izzo/Marsters) Moved to amend the language in the draft Charter proposal to provide that all Legislative Committee meetings be called pursuant to a warrant issued by the Select Board. Yes vote: A. Nebenzahl, A. Garf, P. Izzo, C. Tuck, P. Pietal, A. Marsters, S. Peck. P. Arguimbau abstained.
3) Recording of votes
MOTION: (Izzo/Garf) Moved to amend the language in the draft Charter proposal so that the Town Clerk or the Assistant Town Clerk record all voted taken at the Legislative Committee meetings. Yes vote: A. Nebenzahl, A. Garf, P. Izzo, C. Tuck, P. Pietal, A. Marsters, S. Peck. P. Arguimbau abstained.
4) Rights of citizens
MOTION: (Marsters/Izzo) Moved to amend the language in the draft Charter proposal to reflect the rights of citizens to petition the Legislative Committee and include a matter on the warrant. Yes vote: A. Nebenzahl, A. Garf, P. Izzo, C. Tuck, P. Pietal, A. Marsters, S. Peck. P. Arguimbau abstained.
Approval of October 5, 2009 Minutes
Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion to approve the October 5th minutes as submitted and drafted.
MOTION: (Marsters/Garf) Moved to approve the October 5, 2009 Open Session minutes as drafted and submitted. Vote was six in the affirmative. Mr. Izzo and Mr. Nebenzahl abstained.
It was the consensus of the members to defer a vote on the October 15th meeting.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Nebenzahl asked for a motion to continue this meeting and reconvene on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION: (Marsters/Peck) Moved to continue this meeting and reconvene on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the School Department Administrative Offices. Vote was eight in the affirmative.
The October 19th Open Session meeting was suspended was at 10:45 p.m.
Submitted on behalf of the Charter Committee by: Helen Campanario, Recording Secretary to the Charter Commission