HomeMy Public PortalAboutCharter Review Minutes 2014-11-17 951A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ans
MEETING MINUTES
November 17, 2014
Approved on } 61HAld,,LIL,14 Lol4
Call to Order:
A meeting of the Orleans Charter Review Committee was
held on Monday, November 17, 2014 in the Nauset Room
of the Town Hall. Present were Chairwoman Patricia
Fallender, Vice-Chairman Charles Ketchuck, Clerk Anne
Carron, member Carolyn Kennedy, member Susan B.
Christie, member Francis Moran, Jr., member John
Crawford, and Recording Secretary Valerie Pio7o.
Finance Committee liaison Mark Carron and Board of
Selectman liaison David M. Dunford were also present for
the meeting.
Public Comment:
There was no public comment.
Approval of Minutes of November 3. 2014:
,On a motion by Ms. Kennedy, and seconded by Mr.
Ketchuck, the Committee voted to accept the minutes,
as amended, of the November 3, 2014 meeting.
The vote was 7-0-0.
Review Interim Reoort to Board of Selectmen for
November 19:
Mrs. Fallender had made changes to the Interim Report as
suggested by the CRC at the previous meeting and
distributed it to members. She invited the CRC to be at the
Board of Selectmen meeting as a group on the 19'° if they
chose. She asked for any additional comments or
suggestions. The Interim Report has already gone to the
Board of Selectmen in their packet.
Chapter 2 Town Meetina — Consent Calendar Process for
Interrupted Meetina and Reconsiderations — John
Crawford and Frank Moran:
Process for Interrupted Meetina and Reconsiderations
Mr. Crawford advised going with Mr. Moran's suggested
additional language for 2-7-8, which uses Town Counsel's
second proposed alternative for keeping articles that have
passed at a Town Meeting viable and effective, when
faced with an adjournment of the meeting for lack of a
quorum or other reason. The new language solves the
problem of the article remaining open until the Town
Meeting is finally adjourned, possibly at a future time. Mr.
Moran supplied the CRC with the language and the
rationale.
.. ,
MOTION was made by Mr. Crawford, and seconded by
Mr. Ketchuck, to add the following language at the end
of Section 2-7-8: "Provided further, however, that any
reconsideration of all matters must be voted on at the
same session at which the original action was taken,
the intent being to make these matters final at the
same session regardless of whether the meeting is
later adjourned for a lack of quorum or other
circumstance."
The vote was 7-0-0.
Consent Calendar
Mr. Crawford's research revealed there were many ways
to use a Consent Calendar at Town Meeting to consolidate
standard and usual warrant articles, deemed to be non- '
controversial. The CRC liked the idea of the Consent
Calendar, and the procedure they approved of was having
the Board of Selectmen propose a list for the Consent I
Calendar and publish it in the Warrant. Selectman Liaison
Dunford did not see a problem with the Selectmen
proposing a Consent Calendar list for the Warrant. People
in opposition to an item being on the Consent Calendar
could object in writing before the Town Meeting, or by a
show of hands at the Town Meeting. The CRC agreed that
a show of 5 hands in objection, the same needed for a
quorum call, would make sense. Mr. Moran agreed to craft
language summarizing what the CRC agreed to: that a
Consent Calendar could be used for non-controversial
articles, that the Board of Selectmen have the authority to
put that together, that it should be part of the Warrant, and
that a show of 5 hands would be enough to remove an
article from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Moran will show the
language to Mr. Landreth, the Town Administrator, and
Town Counsel for comment before the meeting on
November 24, 2014. The CRC agreed to a Consent
Calendar, and will vote on the Consent Calendar when
they have the language.
2-4-4 Warrant for Special Town Meeting
Mrs. Carron suggested discussing 2 other Chapter 2
sections that Mrs. Holden-Kelly had requested the CRC
review, sections 2-4-4 (Warrant for Special Town Meeting)
and section 2-5-2 (Articles Calling for Appropriation of
Funds). The CRC decided to take up 2-4-4 first at Mrs.
Fallender's request. The concern voiced by Mrs. Holden-
Kelly was that too many additional, non-time-sensitive
articles were being added to a Special Town Meeting, and
also that the FinCom did not have enough time to study
the articles with financial implications. Mr. Crawford noted
that the Selectmen can put as many articles into a Special
Town Meeting as they choose to. Mr. Crawford and Mr.
Moran did not want to put any restrictions on the Special
Town Meeting, or to legislate that an article with financial
implications has to be presented to the FinCom a certain
number of days ahead. Some members of the CRC felt
the Special Town Meeting decisions were best left in the
hands of the Selectmen.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Crawford, seconded by
Mr. Ketchuck, that 2-4-4 and 2-6-2 (linked to 2-4-4)
remain the way they are so stated.
Motion passed 5-2-0.
2-5-2 Articles Callina for Appropriation of Funds
Mrs. Carron proposed language to be added to 2-5-2
requiring a firm estimate of the cost of the project as
described in the Article in the printed warrant. Mrs. Carron
felt that, in some instances, voters were not given the
information they needed to make informed decisions in a
timely fashion, and the FinCom did not have enough time
to make a recommendation on certain projects when an
estimate came in at the last minute. Mrs. Carron stated
that if there was no dollar amount, there should not be an
article. Mr. Crawford liked the idea, but did not see how it
could be enforced. It is already written that the FinCom
and the Board of Selectmen have the chance to review
and comment, but sometimes articles go all the way
through without that. The definition of firm estimate was
discussed. The CRC discussed the fact that the FinCom
can vote not to recommend if they don't have enough
information to review. It was decided that Mrs. Carron will
rework some of her language, such as changing "firm" to
"reasonable" and adding "printed" before Warrant. Mr.
Ketchuck wanted to see the scope of the project in the
wording as well.
Review Recommendations and Discuss Proposed
Chanaes to Chapter 8 — Financial Provisions and
Procedures — Anne Carron:
Topics to include:
• BOS/FinCom Sharing of Information
• Budget Process and Public Hearings
• Independent Auditor and Audit Committee
• Capital Improvements Plan
8-1-6
Mrs. Carron proposed adding "Board of Selectmen" after
"Town." The CRC decided there was no need, as the
FinCom can inform anyone it wants of its findings. The
CRC decided by consensus to leave 8-1-6 with no
change.
8-2-10
Mrs. Carron proposed adding language giving the
FinCom, as well as the Town Administrator, input into the
format of the budget. The CRC discussed that there are
Commonwealth requirements for the format. Mr. Moran felt
that for efficiency purposes, one entity should be in
charge, to avoid disagreements that could cause delay.
This section already says that the Town Administrator
consults with the FinCom. The CRC decided by
consensus to leave 8-2-10 with no change.
8-2-2
Mrs. Carron proposed language giving shared
responsibility for the schedule to the Town Administrator
and the FinCom. Mr. Crawford said 8-2-2 was strongly
written already, and does not want to see a splitting of
responsibilities. The CRC decided by consensus to leave
8-2-2 with no change.
8-3-3
Mrs. Carron asked the CRC to discuss taking out the word
"appropriate." After discussion, the CRC decided by
consensus to leave 8-3-3 with no change.
8-8-1
Mrs. Carron submitted language limiting the time an
auditing firm could serve the town. Mr. Moran did not want
to tie the Selectmen's hands, and pointed out that they
could change auditors every year if they chose to. The
CRC did not see a reason for a change, and by consensus
decided to leave 8-8-1 with no change.
8-8-x
Mrs. Carron submitted language to have an Audit
Committee appointed by the Board of Selectmen and the
FinCom. Mr. Crawford said in that case you would no
longer have an independent auditor. Selectman Dunford
informed the Board that the Board of Selectmen have
taken a proactive role in the auditing process, and as well
as the usual external audit function, have also added an
internal audit process to do spot audits on departments,
which is current best practice. The CRC decided by
consensus not to add an audit committee.
Capital Improvement Plan
Mrs. Fallender said the Capital Improvement Plan still has
to be addressed. The CRC has the responses from the
FinCom chair, but Mr. McClennen cannot be present until
the November 24 meeting. The Capital Improvement Plan,
Chapter 8, will be put on the November 24, 2014 agenda.
Review Input from Town Moderator Landreth on Clarifving
Section 5-2-1 — Fillina Vacancies on Elected Boards —
Frank Moran:
Mr. Moran reviewed the issue of clarification requested by
Mr. Landreth regarding Section 5-2-1 , which covers the
situation when there is a vacancy on an elected Multi
Member Board. Mr. Moran drafted additional clarification
language (draft #1 ), but Mr. Landreth wanted further
clarification, so Mr. Moran drafted some more language
(draft #2.) The language in draft #2 gives the Board of
Selectmen and the Board with the vacancy an equal say in
filling that vacancy.
Selectmen Dunford did not believe any change should be
made. He said the additional language would give rise to
giving the board with the vacancy a veto power over the
Board of Selectmen, and the ability of the board with the
vacancy to have a concentration of power. That board
would be dictating its own fate while the Board of
Selectmen would be looking at the whole picture.
The CRC agreed that draft #1 would be appropriate for
clarification purposes. It is already in Massachusetts
General Law. However, if Massachusetts General Law
changed, then 5-2-1 would also have to be changed. The
CRC decided by consensus to leave 5-2-1 as it stands.
Charter Lanquaae and Town Meeting By-Law
Coordination — Carolvn Kennedv:
Mrs. Fallender and Ms. Kennedy drafted a letter and a list
of changes that are needed. This is not a charge of the
CRC and Mrs. Fallender recommended that the letter and
list be sent to the Town Administrator's office. Mrs.
Fallender said the only discrepancy that may affect the
CRC was with the Move the Question fraction. On May 5,
1994, a petition article was passed to change it to a 2/3
vote so Mrs. Fallender asked if 2-7-5 needs to be changed
to reflect a 2/3 vote (2-7-5 currently has 4/5 as the
fraction).
Mrs. Fallender will be Dresentina the letter and list to the
Town Administrator and the Town Clerk's office tomorrow..
Mrs. Fallender also sent out a Dress release to the Town
Administrator's Office about uocomina hearinas., and the
Public Hearing on January 12.
Review Charter Suqqestion Database and add anv New
Input — Receive anv Research Input from Committee
Members:
None at this time.
Items for Future Agendas:
• Develop language for proposed Charter
Amendments with rationales
• Prepare notice for January 12, 2015 Public
Hearing
• Ch. 8 with Mr. McClennen
• Consent Calendar — Mr. Moran to bring language
• 2-5-2
Adiournment
On a motion by Ms. Kennedy, and seconded by Mr.
Ketchuck, the Board voted to adjourn.
The vote was 7-0-0.
Adjourned at 9:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Picco
Recording Secretary
Anne Carron,
Clerk
Attachments:
CRC Interim Report to Board of Selectmen 11 -19-14
Memorandum on 2-7-8
CRC FinCom Comments
2014.11 .03 McClennen Capital Plan Thoughts
CRC Landreth Section 5-2-1
Moran Section 5-2-1 , Revised Change
CRC Letter to TA and TC, Charter, Town Code, Town
Bylaws
Page 5 16
A
Input from Town Moderator Duane Landreth for Nov 17h CRC meeting
SECTION
5-2-1 Except as otherwise provided. vacancies in elected Town multi-member bodies
other than the Board of Selectmen established under this chanter shall be filled
within thirtv days by ioint vote of the Board of Selectmen and the remaining
members of the respective Board. in accordance with the provisions of General
Law. The Board of Selectmen and the members of the remaining committee shall y
constitute a committee of the whole for this purpose. each person having one vote.
Underlined language added.
Rationale It appears that there has been some confusion concerning whether the joint vote
of the Board of Selectmen and the subject committee having the vacancy voted to
fill the vacancy by committee votes or by individual head count votes.
Massachusetts law calls for roll call votes in the absence of other authority.
From: Duane Landreth
To: Patricia Fallender
Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Orleans Charter Proposed Change to Section 5-2-1
Pat,
The revision of Section 5-2-1 does clarify the ambiguity, but does not reflect my view that the candidate
should be required to get a majority vote, or at least a tie out of each of the two elected bodies, voting
separately. In practice your proposed language allows a united Board of Selectmen to roll the other
committee. That is an imbalance of power and does not respect the authority of the voters who reposed
their trust in the other board for the carrying out of that board's charge. That the Selectmen are the
executive body does not mean that they should have special authority in, for example, the Board of
Health"s exclusive jurisdiction. Because the Board of Selectmen have broad appointive authority does not
mean that it should be the reflexive choice when other appointive authority is conferred. We are a
government of checks and balances and I think the other elected board for which the appointment is
being made should have a veto power over the appointment,just as the Selectmen would have. That is
the better balance of power.
There is an analogue in the charter governing appointments to the FlnCom; if the appointing authority
fails to fill a vacancy within a certain period, the committee itself chooses the successor.
I hope you will give consideration to this point.
Duey
From: Patricia Fallender[mailto:Pfallender @msn.comj
Sent:Tuesday,November 11,2014 12:22 PM
To:Duane Landreth
Cc: Orleans
Subject:Re:Orleans Charter Proposed Change to Section 5-2-1
Duey,
Thank you for your prompt response. I will share your email with all CRC members at our
next meeting on Nov 17th.
Would you please consider the voting process problem under your scenario of both boards
voting separately if the elected board needing to replace members no longer has a quorum
to legally meet?
What process would you suggest under this circumstance?
Pat
Pat,
That's going to be rare since it assumes that there are three vacancies in a five member board. For the
rare case where either board or both could not muster a quorum, default to a majority of the committee as
a whole. Such an unusual case should not dictate the rule for the usual case.
Duane P.Landreth,Esq.
La Tanzi,Spaulding&Landreth,P.C.
11/17/14—Revised Change submitted by Frank Moran:
In view of Mr. Landeth's clarification below,I offer the following Revised Change to
address his concerns,with which I agree:
SECTION
5-2-1 Except as otherwise provided. vacancies in elected Town multi-member bodies
other than the Board of Selectmen established under this chapter shall be filled
within thirtv days by ioint vote of the Board of Selectmen and the remaining
members of the respective Board. in accordance with the provisions of General
Law. In order to fill the vacancv. a candidate must receive a maioritv vote. and in
the event of an even number of members voting. a tie vote, of the Board of
Selectmen and the remaining members of the Board or Committee in which the
vacancv occurred. each board voting separatelv.
Underlined language added.
Rationale It appears that there has been some confusion concerning the meaning of a
"joint vote." The clarifying language would make it clear that the appointment to
fill a vacancy will come from an equal voice of both the Board of Selectmen and
the affected board or committee.
Input from Town Moderator Duane Landreth for Nov 17h CRC meeting
SECTION
5-2-1 Except as otherwise provided. vacancies in elected Town multi-member bodies
other than the Board of Selectmen established under this chanter shall be filled
within thirtv days by ioint vote of the Board of Selectmen and the remaining
members of the respective Board. in accordance with the provisions of General
Law. The Board of Selectmen and the members of the remaining committee shall
constitute a committee of the whole for this purpose. each person having one vote.
Underlined language added.
Rationale It appears that there has been some confusion concerning whether the joint vote
of the Board of Selectmen and the subject committee having the vacancy voted to
fill the vacancy by committee votes or by individual head count votes.
Massachusetts law calls for roll call votes in the absence of other authority.
From: Duane Landreth
To: Patricia Fallender
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Orleans Charter Proposed Change to Section 5-2-1
Pat,
The revision of Section 5-2-1 does clarify the ambiguity, but does not reflect my view that the candidate
should be required to get a majority vote, or at least a tie out of each of the two elected bodies, voting
separately. In practice your proposed language allows a united Board of Selectmen to roll the other
committee. That is an imbalance of power and does not respect the authority of the voters who reposed
their trust in the other board for the carrying out of that board's charge. That the Selectmen are the
executive body does not mean that they should have special authority in,for example,the Board of
Health"s exclusive jurisdiction. Because the Board of Selectmen have broad appointive authority does not
mean that it should be the reflexive choice when other appointive authority is conferred. We are a
government of checks and balances and I think the other elected board for which the appointment is
i
being made should have a veto power over the appointment,just as the Selectmen would have.That is
the better balance of power.
There is an analogue in the charter governing appointments to the FlnCom; if the appointing authority
fails to fill a vacancy within a certain period, the committee itself chooses the successor.
I hope you will give consideration to this point.
Duey
From: Patricia Fallender[mailto:Pfallender @msn.comj
Sent:Tuesday,November 11,2014 12:22 PM
To:Duane Landreth
Cc: Orleans
Subject: Re: Orleans Charter Proposed Change to Section 5-2-1
Duey,
Thank you for your prompt response. I will share your email with all CRC members at our
next meeting on Nov 17th.
Would you please consider the voting process problem under your scenario of both boards
voting separately if the elected board needing to replace members no longer has a quorum
to legally meet?
What process would you suggest under this circumstance?
Pat
Pat,
That's going to be rare since it assumes that there are three vacancies in a five member board. For the
rare case where either board or both could not muster a quorum, default to a majority of the committee as
a whole. Such an unusual case should not dictate the rule for the usual case.
Duane P.Landreth,Esq.
La Tanzi,Spaulding&Landreth,P.C.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orleans Charter Review Committee
FROM: Francis S. Moran, Jr.
DATE: November 11, 2014
RE: Proposed Change to Section 2-7-8
At our November 3, 2014 meeting, I volunteered to prepare language to address Section
2-7-8.
Selectman Jon Fuller had suggested a change to Section 2-7-8, adding the following
language:
In the event that Town Meeting is interrupted due to a lack of a quorum, or other
circumstance, as approved by the Town Moderator, and cannot be reconvened due to a lack of a
quorum or other approved circumstance, those Articles of the Warrant duly acted upon by Town
Meeting, shall stand and not have to be reconsidered.
The Charter Review Committee referred this suggestion to Town Counsel, stating that the
effect of this addition would be that the time spent by Town Meeting voters would not be wasted
and their intent in acting on these Warrant articles is respected. Town Counsel, Michael D. Ford,
responded on October 31, 2014, as follows:
There are no sections of the Massachusetts G.L. that would prevent the additional
sentence proposed. However, I suggest the following language with respect to the proposed
addition to Section 2-7-8:
Provided, however, that if the Town Moderator determines that an interruption to the
Town Meeting has occurred by lack of quorum or other circumstances and makes a
determination that the meeting cannot be reasonably reconvened at a stated place and
time with the necessary quorum to conduct business, then a motion to dissolve the Town
Meeting shall be in order.
It would also be important to clarify what I understand to be the practice in Orleans (that
a motion to adjourn to a time certain or to dissolve may be made notwithstanding the lack of
quorum) The language suggested above still gives power to the voters at the Meeting to
determine whether the Moderator's assessment is correct by considering a motion to dissolve. It
also accomplishes the goal of the provision to accept the articles previously voted upon as final
terminating the right to reconsider should the order to dissolve pass. Alternatively, the
Committee may wish to consider limiting the power of reconsideration. Many towns limit
reconsideration to the same evening or session of Town Meeting so that articles acted on become
final on the same evening(session).
As I suggested at our November 3 meeting, the approach of limiting reconsideration
appears to accomplish our purposes without getting into the implications of changing provisions
concerning a motion to dissolve the meeting. I have drafted the attached language to limit
reconsideration, and in order to make the intent clear I have also included explanatory language.
Charter Review 2014-2015
Proposed Change to Home Rule Charter
SECTION
2-7-5 No motion,the effect of which would be to dissolve the Town Meeting, shall be in
order until every article in the Warrant has been duly considered and acted upon.
This requirement shall not preclude the postponement of consideration of any
article to an adjournment of the meeting to a stated time and place. Provided
further. however. that anv reconsideration of all matters must be voted on at the
same session at which the orieinal action was taken. the intent beine to make
these matters final at the same session resardless of whether the meetine is later
adiourned for a lack of auorum or other circumstance.
Underlined language added.
Rationale The added language is intended to provide finality to the articles and
matters voted on at Town Meeting, regardless of an adjournment for lack of
quorum or other circumstance. Any motion for reconsideration must be
taken up at the session at which the matter is originally considered, providing
finality to that matter despite any adjournment to another date and time.
This procedure is common in the charters and by-laws of many towns for
the same reason it is being proposed here.
OF ORLEANS
a�
`. 9 ,OTLJtO�`1JJ RLEANS MASSACHUSETTS 02653-3699
.40 D 08)24L 0-3700 ---- Fa (508 24) 0-3703
ttp:///% w .tow .orlems.maxs
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 17, 2014
TO: Town Administrator John Kelly
Town Clerk Cynthia May
RE: Coordination of Charter, Town Code, and Town Meeting Bylaws
The Charter Review Committee has identified some discrepancies between what is stated
in the Charter and what is included in the Town Code and the Town Meeting Bylaws. While
researching information to address a suggested change by Town Moderator Landreth, a
Committee member confirmed that there are some instances where the Town Code as
shown on the Town web site and the Town Meeting Bylaws printed in the Warrant are
different.
It is not in the charge to the Charter Review Committee to make these changes but attached
is a list of the changes that need to be made so that you can address this issue.
There is one discrepancy that needs to be reviewed by you and Town Counsel Michael Ford
regarding the vote of Town Meeting to "Move the Question". The Home Rule Charter states
in 2-7-5 that a 4/5 vote is required which then requires a standing count. Mr. Landreth
believes that this should be a 2/3 vote. The Town Code 194-15 requires a 2/3 vote to "Move
the Question" while the Town Meetings Bylaw Motion Chart printed in the Warrant requires a
3/4 vote. CRC research has found that at the Orleans Annual Town Meeting on May 5, 1994
Article 22 (by petition) was passed unanimously by voice vote to change the "Move the
Question" from a Majority vote to a 2/3 vote (see attached).
The Charter Review Committee needs to know if it should recommend a Charter change to
2-7-5 to reflect the 2/3 vote passed by Town Meeting in 1994.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
a
Patricia Fallender, Chairman, Charter Review Committee
CHANGES NEEDED TO THE ORLEANS TOWN CODE AND TOWN MEETING BYLAWS
1) Town Code 194-4 Quorum need to be two-hundred (200)
2) Town Code 194-5 Quorum Challenge needs 5 or more voters
3) Town Meeting Bylaw "Moderator: Participation in Discussions" needs to be
changed to "Moderator's Participation in Discussions"
4) Town Meeting Bylaws Method of Voting: for gender neutral wording change
"him" to "Moderator" in first sentence
5) Town Code 194-11 add (2/3) after two-thirds
6) Town Code 194-12 add "or amendments thereto" after those persons making
the original motion
7) Town Code 194-13 Reconsideration and Town Meeting Bylaws
Reconsideration change to read "...and if the Moderator meves determines
that ..."
8) Town Meeting Bylaws Recount: change "him" to "Moderator"
9) Town Meeting Bylaws Articles for Capital Improvements: include all of Clause
8-7-1 from the Orleans Home Rule Charter.
EXCERPT FROM ORLEANS ANNUAL TOWN MEETING MAY 5. 1994
ART11CLE 22, AMP= G F241 Al, G ODE TOWN MEETING BYLAW -
8Y :PIH."il'IT l
'To seP if the T'oWn Will vote to .amend the 0:%(l 'Tewaa L)9eeti§tZ R laawe, Orlh,ans
Town Code,. r;baptcr 194, Wttatr 35, WblCh reads "Hove the 1413e14JInn. Rill a
l Not deBatll Mil vote. 7% minat_ de;batill by Striking the wor&,
"P -il Vote° and aubstfraitin thereforF UbA fi(slJowin,g words: "Two thirds 'vote
No as amendprB chapter IPA, Seciicn Is wii] reel ae follows. 'Moue the Qvie iiosa.
Ril l a serand. :Net dehatahte. Two thirds vote. Terminates debate,_% op to
tako pray ottier aletion fmladve the:C.@tSo
MOTIOR To aecatpt and r ilwt. ahafi the Genanul Bylaws or the Town al' Oil Ibe
so aaiell and that the Town Meeting motfaa7 chart which is Dart of maid General
9Nlaksr be anicinded aocaruijnpjy.
AG;'lION Voted, voi" vote "ri-fes uumanimourilt
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE INTERIM REPORT
to the
Orleans Board of Selectmen
November 19, 2014
TO: Orleans Board of Selectmen
FROM: Orleans Charter Review Committee
Patricia Fallender, Chairman
RE: PROGRESS UPDATE
The Charter Review Committee has to date received more than 100 suggestions, and has held 11
meetings through November 3, 2014.
Since July,the CRC has hosted the Town Administrator John Kelly, Town Moderator Duane
Landreth, Finance Committee Chairperson Gwen Holden Kelly, Director of Finance David
Withrow and individual citizens. The Committee thanks each of them for taking the time to
present recommendations for changes to the Charter. The Committee also wishes to acknowledge
the support we have received from the Town Clerk's office and the Town Administrator's office
as well as the input we received from members of many boards and committees who responded
to the survey the Committee sent out for feedback on appointed or elected multi-member bodies.
The Committee has also contacted many community organizations and issued press releases
soliciting input from the public.Any committee or citizen wishing to meet with us and share any
issues or concerns regarding the Charter is welcome to attend our Public Comment period or
arrange to be placed on the Agenda. The CRC email address is
charterideas a..town.orleans.ma.us. Our meetings are usually held on Monday evening at 6:30 PM
in the Nauset Room and are shown live on Channel 18, with several repeats.
We also want to thank David Dunford for his willingness to participate in our discussions,to
unofficially offer clarification on any questions we might have regarding Board input, and take
any questions back to the Board. Mark Carron, liaison from the Finance Committee, has also
helped our deliberations by sharing his knowledge as a member of the original Charter
Commission.
Each member of the Committee was assigned to review and report on one or two chapters, using
the input spreadsheets to facilitate the report, and most have had a first run-through discussion.
Although individual members have been offering potential recommendations which appear to
have consensus, we are systematically deliberating all suggested changes chapter by chapter. A
few decisions have been made and some votes have been taken. Our agendas are posted on the
Town website so individuals can see what will be on tap at each meeting, and we hope they will
join us.A required Public Hearing on proposed Charter amendments is scheduled for Monday,
January 12, 2015 at 7 pm and we hope as many people as possible will attend.
2
SOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND VOTES TAKEN
Introduction: add a sixth goal: "to promote transparency in government, that is, providing
information to citizens about what their government is doing, at all levels, and providing
rationale for its decisions"
Chapter 1: Town Powers: no changes
Chapter 2: Town Meeting
Reduce the Quorum—CRC voted for Quorum=20
Look at Warrant Time Line, order of articles
Consent Calendar
Need for voter education about Town Meeting process
Chapter 3: Board of Selectmen
Honorarium—CRC voted to set honorarium at$3000 with additional $500 for Chairman
Inter-municipal agreements: CRC voted to increase $ amount to$500K and
length of time to 5 years
Term limits—cannot change unless an elected Charter Commission
Separate Park Commission - decided to keep BOS as Park Commissioners
BOS as liaisons—no change to Charter as new BOS Policy adopted
Chapter 4: Town Administrator: some changes to DPW titles
Chapter 5: Elected Multi-member Bodies
Term limits—no change to Charter
Clarify voting process to fill vacancies on elected boards
Chapter 6: Appointed Multi-member Bodies
Term Limits—CRC voted for 2 consecutive 3 year terms; allow BOS to appoint for
another 1 year term if deemed in best interest of Town; and grandfather all current
terms
CRC voted that Non-resident taxpayers be eligible for appointment to Multi-member Bodies
Chapter 7: Citizen Participation,Election,Recall
Recall process—No change to Charter
Non-partisan elections—No change to Charter since governed by MGL campaign finance
laws
Chapter 8: Financial Provisions and Procedures
Formalize term limit policy of Moderator for appointment to FinComm
Review of FinComBoS public hearings process
Independent Auditor-length of contract
Need for an Audit Committee
Capital Improvements Plan—clarifications and inclusions
Chapter 9: Planning and Environment: no changes
Chapter 10: Charter operation and Maintenance: no changes
Throughout, correct any spellings,typos, and format errors; clarify language with no change of
meaning.
We look forward to continuing our deliberations, and again encourage everyone to participate—
check our Agenda and join us in person or on TV!
r
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Charter Review Committee
From: Alan McClennen
Date: November 3,2014
Subject: Charter Review Comments
I understand that your current schedule calls for a discussion of the financial provisions and
procedures of the Charter later this fall. I would like to take this opportunity to share some
preliminary thoughts of the current provisions of Chapter 8,specifically; Section 5 entitled
Capital Improvements Plan.
1 am submitting these comments now in an effort to have a more thorough discussion of the
Capital Planning process when it comes to a future agenda. My goal is to make the Capital Plan
more precise and clear. The proper management and maintenance of our capital assets is a
critical and often overlooked part of municipal government.
The capital planning process is described in the charter in three sections. Section 5, Capital
Improvements Plan, Section 6,Notice of Public Hearing on Capital Improvements Plan and
Section 7, Action of Town Meeting. My comments follow each sub section,which I have
copied below.
8-5-1 The Town Administrator shall prepare a five-year Capital
Improvements Plan,which shall be designed to deal with unmet long-range
needs,and to implement the goals and objectives of the Orleans
Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Improvements Plan shall be developed
based on established Board of Selectmen policy regarding types of projects to
be included.
Comment: The charge to the Town Administrator is clear and precise-to "deal with unmet
long-range needs, and to implement the goals and objectives of the Orleans Comprehensive
Plan." What If the Board of Selectmen policy deviates from these basic
objectives?
CRC: Can you site some examples of how the selectmen's policy may deviate from the
objectives? This would help relate the issue to 8-5-1. Based on your comments in 8-7-1,
consideration of defining a capital expenditure in this subsection may have merit,which would
eliminate the need for an annual selectman's policy adjustment.
8-5-2 The Capital Improvements Plan shall include all Town activities and
departments.Proposed capital expenditures for the regional school and other
regional entities shall be excluded in said Plan provided that such exclusion shall be
consistent with the regional or inter-municipal agreement establishing such
entities.
Comment: Section 8-5-2 needs to be related to 8-5-1 above as it changes the scope by saying,
"shall include all Town activities and departments." How should we deal with state or federal
grant programs where Orleans may have to contribute some funds to generate the multiplier
effect of grant money? Think about the intersections project. We have known that the State
would do the intersections project for several years because it was in the regional transportation
improvement program (TIP). Shouldn't our Capital Plan have included this project since we
could assume that there would be some non-
participating costs? If it had been in the Plan it would only have required a 2/3 rd.
vote for approval.
I wonder why regional entities are excluded.The Orleans'taxpayers are still going to
have to pay for their share of the project.
CRC: I have drafted the following language of 8-5-2 for the CRC to consider.
8-5-2 The Capital Improvements Plan shall include all Town and departments,
regional schools and other regional, interminuicipal,federal and state entities,
provided that each shall be consistent with the regional or inter-municipal
agreement establishing such entities.
8-5-3 The Capital Improvement Plan shall include: (a) a clear summary of its
contents; (b)a list of all capital improvements proposed to be undertaken during the
next five fiscal years, together with supporting data; (c) cost estimates, methods of
financing,and recommended time schedules; and (d) the estimated annual cost of
operating and maintaining the facilities or equipment to be constructed or acquired.
The above information may be revised and shall be extended each year with regard
to capital improvements pending or in the process of construction or acquisition.
Any entry in said Plan previously approved-at Town Meeting that is moved out
more than one year shall be specifically noted and adjusted to reflect changing
economic conditions.
Comment: Item (b) refers to a list of"all capital improvements". The Capital Plan is
supposed to include all capital items, which includes equipment, which is not an
"improvement". The section indicates that the information "may be revised". The
question is when and how. Do we have to wait for the next Plan or could we make
adjustments at a Special town Meeting? It also indicates that a project can be included in
multiple years if it involves "the process of construction or acquisition". Finally, what is
the meaning of"changing economic conditions?"
CRC: I have drafted the following language of 8-5-3 for the CRC to consider.
8-5-3 The Capital Plan shall include: (a) a clear summary of its contents; (b)a list
of all capital expendituresproposed to be undertaken during the next five fiscal
years, together with supporting data; (c) cost estimates, methods of financing,and
recommended time schedules; and (d) the estimated annual cost of operating and
maintaining the facilities or equipment to be constructed or acquired. The above
information may be revised and shall be extended each year with regard to capital
expenditurespending or in the process of construction or acquisition.Any entry in
said Plan previously approved at Town Meeting that is moved out more than one
year shall be specifically noted and adjusted to reflect changing economic
conditions.
(Note:the proposed change from Capital "IMPROVEMENT" Plan to now read"Capital Plan". If
this is the intent, we must make this change throughout Section 5.)
8-5-4 The Capital Improvements Plan shall be submitted to the Board of
Selectmen by January 15 of each year. The Board shall act thereon within 30 days
and shall submit any Plan revisions to the Finance Committee,which shall issue its
recommendation as part of the annual Finance Committee Report.
Comment: The Town Administrator must submit the Plan to the Board of Selectmen by
January 15th. The Board of Selectmen "shall act thereon within thirty days", and then
"submit any Plan revisions to the Finance Committee, which shall issue its
recommendations as part of the annual Finance Committee Report." (To the Annual
and/or Special Town Meeting?)
CRC: I have drafted the following language of 8-5-4 for the CRC to consider.
8-5-4 The Capital Improvements Plan shall be submitted to the Board of
Selectmen by January 15 of each year. The Board shall act thereon within 30 days
and shall submit any Plan revisions to the Finance Committee,which shall issue its
recommendation as part of the annual Finance Committee Report printed in the
warrant.
8-6-1 The Board of Selectmen shall publish,in one or more newspapers of general
circulation in town,the general summary of the capital improvements plan and a
notice stating; (a) the times and places where copies of the capital improvements
plan are available for inspection; and (b) the date, time,and place, not less than
seven days following such publication,where the Board of Selectmen and the
Finance Committee shall conduct a public hearing, chaired by the Finance
Committee, on said plan. The joint hearing shall be held no later than March 1 of
each year.
Comment: What happens after the joint public hearing? The Charter is silent! How do the
Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee make their recommendations to Town
Meeting? It would seem that if there were differences and questions between the Board and
the Finance Committee after the public hearing there should be continued discussions about
changes to the Plan.
CRC: I have drafted the following language of 8-6-1 for the CRC to consider.
8-6-1 The Board of Selectmen shall publish,in one or more newspapers of general
circulation in town, the general summary of the capital improvements plan and a
notice stating; (a) the times and places where copies of the capital improvements
plan are available for inspection; and (b) the date, time, and place, not less than
seven days following such publication,where the Board of Selectmen and the
Finance Committee shall conduct a public hearing,chaired by the Finance
Committee,on said plan, and immediately after said public hearing convene a
joint meeting of the BOS and FinCom to address differences and/or questions
from said public hearing or committee members. The joint hearing shall be held
no later than March 1 of each year.
Y
8-7-1 The Town Meeting shall act on the Capital Improvements Plan, provided that
any article for capital improvements not in compliance with clause 8-5-1 shall
require a three-fourths majority vote of the town meeting. An article for capital
improvements shall be considered in compliance with clause 8-5-1 if it appeared in
the Capital Improvements Plan in the prior year and does not exceed the Capital
Improvements Plan estimated cost by more than ten percent.
Comment: 1 understand what is intended,which is careful budgeting of activities in the Capital
Plan. However, not all activities in the Capital Plan are capital improvements, i.e.major
equipment, land or certain studies that might lead to a capital improvement. Also,the Charter is
silent on the Capital Budget, which is how activities are funded after they have progressed
through the five-year plan. Finally,there is no definition of Capital
Asset in the Charter.
CRC: I have drafted the following language of 8-7-1 for the CRC to consider.
8-7-1 The Town Meeting shall act on the Capital Plan, provided that any article for
capital expenditures not in compliance with clause 8-5-1 shall require a three-
fourths majority vote of the town meeting.An article for capital expendituresshall
be considered in compliance with clause 8-5-1 if it appeared in the Capital Plan in
the prior year and does not exceed the Capital Plan's estimated cost by more than
ten percent.
(Note: As mentioned in 8-5-3,if agreed to drop the word"Improvement"it will require that this
change be made throughout Section 5)
1 look forward to further discussions with you when the Capital Planning Process is on your
agenda for action.
6 1' Fw: Comments from Chairwoman of the Finance Committee
.. From: Valerie Picco 11/16/2014 06:54 PM
To: Valerie Picco
Please respond to Valerie Picco
----- Forwarded Message -----
From:Anne H Carron <ahcarron @comcast.net>
To: Patricia Fallender<Pfallender @msn.com>; Chuck Ketchuck<ketchuck @gmail.com>; Sue Christie
<schristie91 @comcast.net>;John Crawford <johncr181 @gmail.com>; Carolyn Kennedy
<c2kenn2 @verizon.net>; Frank Moran <fsmoran @rcn.com>;Valerie Picco<valeriepicco @yahoo.com>;
Town-Clerk-E-malls <commail @town.orleans.ma.us>; David Dunford <d.dunford @att.net>; Mark E.
Carron <mecarron @comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 6:45 PM
Subject: Comments from Chairwoman of the Finance Committee
Good Evening, Everyone,
On November 5, 1 sent both Alan McClennen and Gwen Holden-Kelly suggestions of
wording in regards to Chapter 8, Sections 8-5-1; 8-5-2; 8-5-3; 8-5-4; 8-5-6 and 8-5-7. 1
did ask them if they would review my language and please get back to me by
November 10 so that I could send everything out to you all well in advance of our
meeting.
Mr. McClennen did not make any comments on the sections and said he would be
unable to attend tomorrow night's meeting, but he hoped to discuss the CIP at the next
meeting; this evening, I received comments from FinCom Chair, Mrs. Holden-Kelly, and
am forwarding her comments to everyone.
I know this will give all of us some valuable information. Thank you.
Anne
Sent from my Pad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gwen Holden <aah.nausetarouo anamail.com>
Date: November 16, 2014 at 3:42:23 PM EST
To: Anne Carron <a hcarron O.comcast.net>
Cc: "McClennen, Alan" <alanboats @aol.com>
Subject: Supplemental comments for Charter Review Committee . . .
Anne:
As I said in a previous email to you, I appreciate your sharing with me the draft language
that you prepared for the Charter Review Committee's consideration in response to some
of the questions and issues raised by Selectman Alan McClennen in his comments on
Chapter 8 of the Town Charter. I am so sorry to be getting this to you in such a"last
minute" fashion,but, hopefully, what I am forwarding will give you the information that
you need for your meeting on Monday night.
Recommendation: Proposed change to Section 8-5-4 . . .
I have one recommendation that I would like to submit for your consideration concerning
the following Charter provision to which you have added suggested language(underlined)
to respond to Alan's comments. That section follows:
8-5-4 The Capital Improvements Plan shall be submitted to the Board of
Selectmen by January 15 of each year. The Board shall act thereon within 30 days
and shall submit any Plan revisions to the Finance Committee, which shall issue
its recommendations as part of the annual Finance Committee Report printed in
the Warrant.
I would suggest that you amend Section 8-5-4 to end that Section after the second
reference to the Finance Committee so that Section would read as follows:
8-5-4 The Capital Improvements Plan shall be submitted to the Board of
Selectmen by January 15 of each year. The Board shall act thereon within 30 days
and shall submit any Plan revisions to the Finance -°
Committee., h
its reeemmendatiens as
the xx
Commentary. . .
It would appear that the reference to "the annual Finance Committee Report printed in the
Warrant" in Section 8-5-4 with your suggested amendatory language would be to a
document that has become over the past three years a higher-level report from the Finance
Committee on the "state of the Town," if you will, in which we have focused on both
near-term and long-term issues having fiscal implications for the Town that we believe
should be addressed as priorities. While occasionally we have discussed issues that we
have with items that are to be taken up at Town Meeting--notably in our discussion on
wastewater in our 2013 Warrant Report,we have not been using that Report as a vehicle
for reporting on our actions on the Articles that are to be taken up at the Annual and
Special Town Meeting. Instead, at present our votes on Articles are reported in one of
two ways: In the Warrant on Articles on which we voted before the Warrant was sent out
to be printed-or at Town Meeting by the Town Moderator from the podium when an
Article is taken up on which we voted after the Warrant was sent out to be printed. At the
start of each Town Meeting, we provide the Moderator with a list of those Articles for
which he will need to announce our votes when those Articles are taken up. I will note
that we do have to be vigilant to make sure that, in the heat of the moment,the Moderator
does remember to advise Town Meeting on how the Finance Committee voted on
Articles where there is no vote indicated in the Warrant.
Also, the Finance Committee does not act on individual Board revisions to the Capital
Improvements Plan(CIP) and would be unlikely to opt to do so. The Finance Committee
only takes one vote on that Plan and that is on the CIP Article that appears in the Annual
Meeting Warrant. The process that we follow leading up to that vote begins with our
receipt of the "proposed" Plan by January 15th. It then is our practice--and I believe,
the Board's as well--not to take up the CIP until after the joint public hearing on that
Plan,which the Finance Committee convenes in mid-February. And, further,it is our
practice not to act on the CIP until the Board has acted on that Plan.
The Finance Committee never in my six years as a member has received a formal
communication from the Board transmitting to us any revisions that the Board has
decided to make to the CIP --and I report this as fact,not as a criticism of the Board.
Instead, the Finance Committee routinely monitors the Board's deliberations of, and
actions on, the CIP, and factors those deliberations and actions into our consideration of
the CIP when we take up that topic. If we have questions or concerns regarding any
action that the Board takes with regard to revising the Plan, we would communicate them
to the Board. If we have unresolved concerns about the CIP,we might choose to address
those concerns in our presentation on the CIP Article at Town Meeting.
Recommendations regarding budget review schedules and Articles included in
Annual Town Meeting Warrants . . .
In addition to my recommendation regarding your amendment to Section 8-5-4,I would
like to reiterate two comments that I made on the Finance Committee's behalf in my visit
with the Charter Review Committee on Oct. 6th. At that time, I encouraged the
Committee to review provisions of the Charter related to budget review and hearings
schedules. I also shared with your Committee the Finance Committee's recommendation
that the Charter Review Committee give consideration to requiring that any Article
authorizing the appropriation of funds contain a credible and a reliable cost estimate and
that no Article authorizing an appropriation be included in the Town Warrant for action
by Town voters at Town Meeting unless it contains a firm cost estimate. Both of these
comments were offered in the interest of ensuring that provisions of the Charter regarding
development of the Town budget and CIP serve the overarching goal of ensuring that
Town voters have the information that they need to make informed decisions when they
arrive at Town Meeting.
Commentary. . .
With regard to the issue of budget review and hearings schedules -- and using the CIP as
an example -- Section 8-5-4 says that the Board is to act on the CIP within 30 days of
receiving it--by Feb. 15th, it would seem--and then communicate any revisions that it
has made to that Plan to the Finance Committee. As is required under the Charter,the FY
2016 - 2019 CIP,which was the subject of Article 3 that we took up at Town Meeting on
May 12th of this year, was forwarded to both the Board and the Finance Committee by
the Town Administrator's Office on Jan. 15, 2014. Our joint public hearing on the CIP
was held on Feb. 20th. The Board acted on the CIP on April 2nd,and the Finance
Committee acted on the CIP the following evening, on April 3rd,
Section 8-3-1 of the Charter requires that in that same 30-day time frame,the Board of
Selectmen also complete its review of the Town budget and forward any revisions that it
makes to the budget to the Finance Committee. That means that the Charter as currently
written contemplates that between January 15th and February 15th--in 30 days -- the
Board will fully review, and act on both the Town budget and the CIP. The FY 2015
Town Budget--Article 2 at the May 12th Town Meeting this year--was forwarded to
both the Board and the Finance Committee by the Town Administrator's Office on Jan.
15, 2014. The Board acted on the Town budget Article on April 2nd, and the Finance
Committee acted on that Article on April 3rd.
In addition to Charter-mandated budget and CIP public hearings,the Board of
Selectmen's and the Finance Committee's budget review processes in recent years have
involved the convening of joint sessions for reviews of the three departmental budgets
that comprise the majority of Town spending, and in a special joint session to review the
Nauset Regional School District(NRSD) and Orleans Elementary School (OES)
proposed budgets. These collaborative budget review meetings eliminate duplication of
the time town and school officials were required to devote to this process, and,most
important,provide the members of the Finance Committee and the Board the benefit of
each others'knowledge and experience in evaluating departmental budgets. The first of
the joint budget reviews generally is held in late January;the last, in mid-March after the
Board and the Finance Committee receive the final budget proposals for the OES and the
Nauset Regional School District. Neither the Board or the Finance Committee is in a
position to review and vote on the Town Budget until we have the school budgets in
hand. -
The need for firm cost estimates in Articles submitted for action at Town Meeting is an
imperative in the Finance Committee's view, and the absence of such estimates should be
reason enough not to bring a particular initiative to Town meeting for a vote. We believe
that any Article included in the Warrant that authorizes spending for a project should
include a firm estimate of the cost of that project as described in the Article and the
accompanying explanation. We appreciate that events may occur after the Warrant is sent
to the printer that require adjustment to the scope of a proposed project and its estimated
cost on the floor of Town Meeting. But,we believe that Town voters should come to
Town Meeting with sufficient information on the original proposal to evaluate the
efficacy of proposed changes when those changes are presented to voters at Town
Meeting.
Again,I do hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any need for
clarification of anything that I have addressed in this email,please do not hesitate to give
me a call.
Best regards.
Gwen