The Board of Selectmen met this evening with Chairman William Hardin presiding. In attendance were Jeffrey Tufts, Frederick Clark, Patricia Webster, Carla Goodwin, and Town Adm. Kevin Paicos.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 1/25/99.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Executive Session Minutes dated 1/25/99, from 6:30PM - 7:08PM.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to support and approve the Proclamation for Jack Walsh’s Retirement.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to rescind the granting of Pole Petition 98-02.

W. Fulcher in attendance.

Paicos noted that the information from 7 communities was placed in the Board’s packets for review.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to support and approve the Building Department fee increases as proposed.

Hardin referring to a memo from the Town Accountant, noted a request to postpone the award to the 2/22/99 Selectmen’s meeting.

No action taken.

FIRE ALARM BUDGET - Chief Blye in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of the budget.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval to the ATM of the Fire Alarm Budget in the amount of $19,199. Tufts opposed.

John Webby, Janet Linehan, Richard Harb, Jay Gildea, Patricia Hunt, Leo Harlow, Bill McAndrews, in attendance.

Webby noted he is the Chair of the WE CARE Committee. Webby read a prepared statement. Hardin noted that the Board has tried to talk with the MBTA, unsuccessfully. Paicos read from the Statute governing ballot questions for non-binding questions on regular municipal elections, and gave a brief explanation of the process. Paicos noted the wording is crucially important, and that he has issues with the wording of each of the three petitions. Paicos noted a yes or no answer is better. Paicos noted this wording has two different questions in one, 1) do you oppose; 2) with 1 station in Town. With two questions in one there is no clarity to be able to instruct the Board as to the results as a non-binding referendum of the voters. Linehan suggested removing the "or oppose", so this could be a yes or no answer. Linehan stated "do you favor", yes/no.

Paicos noted that if the Selectmen accepts the petition for a ballot question, they can’t change the wording if it alters the substance of the petition. Paicos suggested that if the Board votes to accept the petition, that they retain the right to word it. Paicos noted that if the petitioners want to retain the right to word the question, then have them get the 10% of signatures necessary. Paicos noted that non-binding questions are intended to do two things: 1) provide clarity to local officials if there are prior ambiguities on a decision; 2) if the Board is unable to get a binding vote through the Town Meeting process, and they want public opinion i.e., public policy issues.

Paicos noted that the only legal means to decide policy questions is the ATM vote. Paicos noted that two out of the three petitions have had ATM/STM action/votes, the MBTA and Library. Paicos noted the Board has already received two citizen petitions for the ATM Warrant on the Library to rescind the $5M bond vote. Paicos noted it is likely there will be an ATM Article for more money in the legal budget to fight the MBTA. Paicos noted that in two out of three of the issues, the voters have already spoken. He noted it makes no sense to have non-binding ballot questions on the election ballot, two weeks after the ATM considers binding questions on the same subjects. Paicos noted that if the Board begins a policy with public issues being reduced to ballot questions, it is not in the public’s best interest. Paicos noted that a lot of people will think the ballot question is binding when they vote. Paicos questioned what if Town Meeting votes one way and the ballot goes another way, two weeks later. What will the Board do. Paicos noted that legally the Board must follow the ATM vote. Paicos noted this is a terribly flawed idea.

Hardin noted that the Selectmen are sworn by oath to uphold the regulations and laws and the Town Meeting vote is the legislative body of Easton. Hardin noted he has no problem with a non-binding petition but the Town Meeting vote is what will prevail. Hardin noted that everyone needs to understand that this is non-binding. Tufts noted that he isn’t opposed to having the non-binding questions, but is concerned with the wording. Webby suggested re-wording "do you favor extension of commuter rail service VIA the Town of Easton with one station located in Town". Webster noted that maybe the reason there are three referendum questions submitted is that the people don’t think those running the Town are listening, such as the Board and Town Administrator. Maybe the Board didn’t act correctly in the beginning, but she noted there were two public meetings with MBTA officials, and two public meetings with the Selectmen. She noted there has been little opposition to the Board fighting the MBTA. She noted that voters in favor of the train could have come to the Town Meeting to speak. Webster noted there is a binding Town Meeting vote not to support the train, and a non-binding vote to support would put the Board in a bad position. Webster stated, at what point do we stop following Town Meeting votes, noting that people who disagree with votes on issues such as budgets, land purchases, could start bringing forth ballot questions. Webster questioned are we going to question everything we don’t agree with in the form of ballot questions. Webster noted the Board needs to listen to the fact that people don’t seem to think they are listening. She noted that if we are going to proceed with the question, the wording needs to be clear. Webster noted the need to delay the ATM discussion on this until the ballot question. Webster noted that 891 people at the STM voted on the MBTA issue.

Tufts noted he thinks the Board acted appropriately in the beginning and acted on the input after the first several meetings with the public. Tufts noted the ballot box doesn’t allow for any public education as the ATM or STM does.

Clark questioned if Linehan thought that if the word "or oppose" was removed if the question would be OK. Linehan stated yes.

Clark noted that a Town Meeting vote prior to the ballot question doesn’t make sense. Clark noted the ballot question should be decided then continue the ATM to May 10, 1999 to address those ballot issues. Clark noted he wants the information on the results of the ballot question, prior to ATM discussion/decisions.

Goodwin noted that ballot questions offer advisory information to be considered when making decisions. Goodwin noted that a ballot question should be soliciting new information.

Paicos again stated 2 out of the 3 questions already have Town Meeting votes. Paicos noted that the people that are opposed to the decision made at the STM, now want a ballot question. Paicos noted we have open Town Meeting and everyone has the right to come and be educated and vote based on the input and information learned at the ATM/STM. The Board’s message, if they accept these petitions, to those who go to Town Meetings will be that their presence at the Town Meeting and votes taken can be countered through ballot questions. Paicos noted the Warrant must be written 5-6 weeks prior to the ballot question being decided. There is no chance to change any ATM article based on ballot question input. Paicos noted this is not the proper tool to decide public policy, it should be the open Town Meeting, and everyone can participate in that process at TM. Paicos noted this is a bad precedent to begin.

R. Harb noted he is opposed to the train. He noted that Mr. Webby is obviously in favor of the MBTA. Harb noted the public was afforded the opportunity to be heard. He noted that 1 1/2 years ago a meeting with the MBTA reps was held, and the Board also held numerous hearings on whether we are in favor, or to oppose, and should we raise money to fight. Harb noted that very few people came out in favor of the train. Harb recalled that Clark and Webster implored people to come forward if they were in favor of the MBTA, and people were still overwhelmingly opposed in this Town. Harb noted the STM article to vote on the money for fighting the MBTA and it was approved. Harb noted the Board has solicited input from the public. Harb again recalled the STM vote to oppose the train and put funds towards fighting. Harb noted that people came to the STM and put through hours at that meeting. They gave the Board their opinions, they gave the Board a mandate to oppose the train by their vote. Harb noted the Board should be applauded in all they have done to educate the Town and solicit public input. Harb noted the Board shouldn’t question themselves, or how they have conducted this issue. Harb noted that if this goes to a non-binding question, the Board will be telling people not to show up for the quorum and waste their time at ATM, when issues that are voted can be overturned by non-binding ballot questions.

J. Gildea questioned why J. Webby can’t put this forward with the 10% of voter signatures necessary. Gildea noted he is not sure why this didn’t come forward months ago. Why opposing now, after the Town Meeting vote, and why not right after the vote took place. Gildea questioned why the Board is even considering this petition. Hunt noted she agrees with R. Harb, and that the Board has been acting appropriately. Hunt noted the Board held a big STM that people came to and voted. Hunt noted that people who already came out to the STM may be discouraged to come out in the future if decisions are changed on non-binding ballot questions. Hunt noted she is more concerned though, with the wording of the question, and reviewed the history of the MBTA plan for this train route. Hunt noted that the Board should want the ballot question to give guidance and you would need input based on facts in the MBTA proposal. Hunt referred to her petition question submitted today to the Board with specific questions based on the MBTA’s actual proposal. Hunt noted that would be the most appropriate way for the question to be posed, if the Board allows it at all.

Hunt noted that past experience is that the MBTA will not communicate with the community. Hunt stated that if the Board decides to put it on, it should be relevant.

Goodwin read the proposed question submitted by Hunt.

Clark noted that democracy works best with more people involved, noting the example of 1000 at TM vs 4000 at the election. Clark noted he has had problems with special interests packing Town Meetings to get something passed and then they leave. Clark noted he doesn’t see why people would have a problem with ballot questions where more people can speak.

Tufts noted people have made good points as to what ballot questions will do to the theory of Town Meeting. Tufts noted he gets questions through E-mail on this issue all the time and he had begun to doubt himself, but tonight he sees that the Board did hold the big meetings, three or four times and did do what the people voted.

L. Harlow noted he supported the democratic process of the Town Meeting, when the Town had 4000 people, and Town Meeting did represent the Town well, but now the Town is too big and we need ballot exposure for people to have the opportunity to vote. Harlow noted that many people don’t have the opportunity to get to the Town Meeting due to the fast lives we live, with extracurricular activities of our children, etc. Harlow noted that Town Meeting has ceased to function as the voice of the people, the Town is too big. Harlow noted that to deny the people the opportunity is wrong.

McAndrews noted that ballot questions two weeks before ATM discussion makes sense, but two weeks after is asinine. However, McAndrews noted that people do have the right to be "Stupid". McAndrews noted that any election brings decisiveness. He noted it is OK to have the referendum question, but it won’t solve anything. McAndrews noted that Town Meeting will resolve these issues.

Paicos noted he believes in democracy as strong as everyone else, but we are talking about process in policy decisions. Paicos noted that 1000 people came to that STM to give an answer and 12 people now want to undo that. Paicos noted he objects to the Selectmen accepting 12 on petition vs 1000 peoples’ vote at Town Meeting. Paicos noted that the proponents should get 1400 signatures on paper for a ballot question, not by the Selectmen accepting it with 12.

Linehan noted that MGL 53 Sec. 18-8 states that if these are not voted by the Selectmen 90 days prior to the Town Meeting, the petitioners must get the 10% by 3/8/99.

Goodwin noted the Board needs to consider what is held more important, Town Meeting vote or a non-binding question. Goodwin noted that by either 10 or 1400 signatures, this is a value issue.

Clark noted that the Raynham Selectmen state proudly that by a 2/3 vote on ballot question, they oppose the train.

Tufts noted he listened to the debate and has been turned around in his thoughts.

Tufts motion, seconded by Goodwin, not to include the rail question on the ballot did not pass by a 2-3 vote. Tufts, Goodwin in favor.

Clark’s motion to place the rail question on the ballot, did not receive a second.

No action taken.

Leo Harlow, Lisa Day, G. Marsan in attendance.

Harlow thanked the 300 voters that have already signed his petition. Harlow read a prepared statement. Harlow noted his concern with the addition in the historical area that has been left pristine since the 1800’s. He noted this is the cultural center of the Town also since the 1800’s, and the addition would change things forever. Harlow noted this is a unique situation on this particular ballot. Harlow noted the people that voted in favor at the TM didn’t take into consideration the effects on the historic building. Harlow noted this area will be forever changed, and if the Board doesn’t vote to put this on the ballot, he will get the 1400 signatures necessary.

Tufts noted this is a little different because this issue has been in process for many years and many Town Meetings. Tufts noted this issue more clearly is evidence of trying to overturn Town Meeting votes without a complete process. Tufts noted that this of all three petitions clearly attempts to circumvent the Town Meeting votes.

Goodwin noted this is a clear issue. This should not be a ballot question at all.

Clark noted that a Town Meeting Warrant Article petition with 10 signatures is mandatory to be on the Warrant, but a ballot petition with 10 signatures doesn’t get automatically put on. Clark noted he supports people getting signatures and he will support all three questions being on the ballot.

Webster noted that if Town Meeting vote is to be reconsidered it should be done at Town Meeting, and that she also has issues with the wording of this question. Webster noted the wording is ambiguous and everyone’s idea of the "location" will be different.

Hardin noted he supported library very strongly in the past and it is inadequate in size, but when the proposed monstrosity came forward, he fought it, and now the proposal is nothing like the first one. Hardin noted that in Colonial Williamsburg a library 20 times the size of our existing building had an addition, and you can’t even see it, the way it was constructed. There is a precedent of making additions to historic buildings. Hardin noted you can add to historic buildings without taking away from the original building. Hardin noted he is waiting to see the new proposal, and that the Town of Easton can’t afford to operate two libraries. Hardin noted the current library has a good amount of funding behind it now. Hardin noted he doesn’t have a problem with a non-binding referendum, but he could not personally vote for a new building we don’t have the money for.

Tufts noted that of any issue/discussion over the last 3-5 years, we had the most with the Library Directors. Tufts noted the meeting to discuss the new plans on 2/10/99, at the Unity Church for public input. Tufts noted that people went to Town Meetings repeatedly and if someone wants to mobilize they need to get 1400 signatures or to bring the people to the Town Meeting for a new vote on the proposed ATM Article.

Tufts’ motion, seconded by Goodwin, not to include the Library question on the ballot, was not voted at this time.

Harlow noted that we haven’t supported library with money in Easton, and have depended on the Ames’ for too long. Harlow noted the need for a new location that will service all citizens in the center of Town, not in No. Easton. Harlow noted that most services are in No. Easton, and there was a Study 2000 that said any new school should go in So. Easton, and instead we put the new school in No. Easton.

L. Day questioned where the new plans are now. Hardin gave a brief explanation of the recent history of the library addition project.

G. Marsan gave a brief explanation of the status of the project. He noted it was publicly bid for a new architect, and the Directors are in process with the new architect. Marsan explained the survey/meetings to solicit public input on library services. Marsan gave a brief explanation of the financial situation. Marsan noted that this project is the one approved by the Town, and all funding is attached to this project, endowment, grant etc. Marsan noted that a historic building can be added onto, siting the children’s wing already added on. Marsan noted the Directors are close to finalizing the proposed design , and that all the meetings with the architect are open to the public.

Webster noted that the public perception is, once again, that they aren’t being heard. Webster noted the library had Town Meeting votes, many public meetings held, but due to the legal issues it has been delayed. Webster noted that people have had time to change their minds. Webster noted she hasn’t seen any advertised meetings with the architect, and it is very important to keep the public involved in the process. Marsan noted that the Directors get caught up in process and they should be very aware of the public involvement. Marsan noted that they meet periodically and the meetings are posted. He noted they have incorporated architect discussions in the regular meetings. Marsan noted that once they have an actual proposed design they will have public input meetings, as well as the historical requirements need to be met, both locally and at the State level.

Webster noted that considering the reaction to the original design the Directors should get the concerns raised prior to the new design and base the new design on people’s concerns.

Marsan noted the Directors are paying attention to all comments made/expressed verbally, and in the papers.

L. Day noted that maybe she missed the public meetings being distracted with her involvement with the new school construction.

Hardin noted he will attend the meeting on 2/10/99.

Paicos noted there are two citizen Warrant articles that must be on the ATM Warrant and are binding. Paicos noted that in light of that, non-binding questions are clearly inappropriate. Harlow questioned how the Selectmen had the right to sign a document (Library MOA) without a Town Meeting vote. Paicos gave a brief explanation.

Harlow noted that if the Ames Trust Funds amount to $15M they could operate their own children’s library separately.

William Callahan, Ken Percy in attendance. Callahan noted this issue affects 85-90% of the voters and the location of this plebiscite should be a referendum question on the Annual Town Elections on 4/26/99. Callahan noted people would be best served by a ballot question, stating that 400-425 people attend ATM and 3500-4000 people vote. He noted he thinks the only place the Board, as gracious hosts would invite people to is the two polling places for this issue. He noted that any other way is taking the edge. He noted this is a magnanimous issue, and the Board should give people the change to vote on this, reminding the Board that the people are who the Board of Selectmen works for.
Hardin restated what a non-binding question will and will not accomplish. Hardin noted that a Town Meeting vote must be carried out under our system of government, even with 300 or 400 people vs the 4000 voting in the election on a non-binding question. Hardin noted that Town Meeting will be voting on landfill closure issues, following an educated presentation with the necessary information.

Callahan noted he followed Ch. 53 Sec. 18A.

Hardin read the petition question as proposed.

Webster noted this one is the only petition that Town Meeting hasn’t voted on yet and we could hold the ATM discussion until after the election, to have the full discussion.

Webster’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, to support a re-worded ballot question RE: single vendor trash issue, was not voted at this time.

Paicos noted the motion presumes the non-binding question will be decided on 4/26/99, and the Board will postpone the ATM to May, in order to have the ballot results. Paicos noted there is a mechanical problem because the non-binding questions will already have been written and posted and can’t be changed after the results are received. Paicos noted this ballot question is the same one used in 1991 and it was done prior to when any decisions really needed to be made. Paicos noted the consensus was this article wasn’t worded clearly enough to glean concrete information from the public. Paicos noted that in 1997 with the landfill closing imminent and curbside recycling mandatory, the single vendor issue was proposed by the citizen committee (Recycling Comm.), not the Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator. Paicos noted this is going to be a very complex issue at the ATM, and by then he will have the facts necessary for people to decide. Paicos noted this issue will be decided at the ATM. Paicos noted that two weeks ago when he asked, the Board was hesitant to postpone the ATM to May or June because public education was needed ASAP with the closure happening as of 6/30/99. Paicos noted that if the Board now postpones decisions to May after the ballot question, how would this now be OK.

Hardin again noted the Recycling Comm. has been the one to recommend the single vendor issue, not the Board. Hardin noted that once the information/facts are known, the people will vote their pocketbooks.

Webster noted there is no proposal yet on the single vendor. Webster noted the articles could be drafted ahead of time and then dismissed when necessary.

Paicos noted it would take approx. 9 articles to cover all possible scenarios.

Webster noted that Raynham had a ballot question three years ago and had a majority vote on one proposal and have funded/voted at a subsequent Town Meeting. Webster noted they are all set now as they approach their landfill closing.

Tufts expressed concern with Webster making it seem the Selectmen didn’t do anything. Tufts noted he applauds the Raynham Selectmen if they came to an agreement in time. He noted the State forced the Town of Easton to close on a certain time schedule and Hardin and Tufts both tried many times to get the whole Board to move forward on the closure and they didn’t. Tufts noted now there is only two months left to resolve this, and it boils down to do we want to hear peoples input on this question. Tufts noted he is not sure how to work the question yet either, but would rather look at the facts, not point the blame.

Goodwin noted she would second a motion to put this on the ballot but not to postpone Town Meeting for this. Goodwin questioned why this can’t wait until fall to be resolved and to let the people choose who they want in the interim.

Paicos noted the timing issue isn’t single vs multiple vendor, it is the funding issue. Paicos stated how will that bond be paid for to cap/close the landfill. Paicos noted this is a budgetary financing problem that is driving this, not single vs multiple vendors. Paicos noted he would look into the financing issue to postpone decisions if the Board wants to. Paicos noted there are two budget scenarios, one is paying with user fees, the other would be with taxation. Paicos noted the operating budget would have to be cut to accommodate the $1.8million closure amount.

Clark noted he wants the ballot question before the Town Meeting, and then he would vote with the majority on this issue. Clark noted he doesn’t want people paying money each month towards the closure of the landfill.

Tufts noted that Clark identified problems with this, but he (Tufts) is trying to find solutions. Tufts questioned if Clark has any solutions.

Clark noted he wants Town Counsel to review this petition question as long as any proposed changes don’t cause a substantive change.

Webster noting that if the referendum question for the ballot is to be drafted by the Board, a possible wording could be "To consider the single vs multiple vendor solid waste disposal".

Webster’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, not to put this petition question on the Annual Town Election ballot, but that the Selectmen will draft a non-binding question(s) RE: solid waste landfill closure and the financial options, and to hold the ATM article until two weeks following the Election, was not voted at this time.

Goodwin noted this non-binding question is to be used as a tool to educate the public and solicit input.

K. Percy noted that Town Counsel wrote the original ballot question which is being used on this petition.

Percy noted the Recycling Committee has been working on this issue for two years and now the Board is going to wait for the results of a non-binding question. Percy expressed concern that this is circumventing the charge given to the Recycling Committee. Percy noted this non-binding question should have been taken prior to the Recycling Committee’s work of two years. Percy noted a lot of people don’t want to give up their right of choice but the Recycling Committee has the facts and figures that are very convincing with the costs involved. Percy asked the Board to let the Recycling Comm. come and give their information.

Paicos questioned who would write the new ballot question. It was agreed that the Town Administrator would work with key people, in particular the Recycling Committee, to prepare a draft question to be sent to the Board for review prior to the next Selectmen’s meeting. Tufts suggested one concise question on single vs multiple vendors. It was agreed that Selectmen Tufts and Goodwin would work with the Town Administrator to structure the ATM Warrant.

Paicos expressed concern with how to proceed with the operating budgets, and with trying to put together a Warrant with all contingencies. Webster noted that in April the zoning type, housekeeping articles etc., could be set for the 4/12/99 meeting and then could adjourn to 5/10/99 for financial issues affected by the non-binding results.

Paicos noted he will need to review the situation over the next few days. No action taken tonight.

FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET - Chief Blye, A. Martin in attendance.

At this point in the meeting Selectman Patricia Webster left during discussion and voting.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this budget.

Paicos suggested the Board approve the Fire Budget subject to coming back to the Board prior to printing to discuss the OT needs, similar to the Police Budget.

Tufts’ motion, seconded by Goodwin, to recommend approval to the ATM of the Fire Department Budget in the amount of $2,041,118, subject to the OT lines coming back to the Board prior to printing of the Warrant, was not voted at this time.

A. Martin expressed concern with the possibility of station closings and noted the STM vote to keep stations open. Hardin noted that the Board has no intention of voting for closing stations.

AMBULANCE BUDGET - P. Blye in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this budget. Tufts noted his opposition to this Budget because it is not self supporting and he also has concerns with the method of collection.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted 3-1 to recommend to the ATM approval of the Ambulance Budget in the amount of $325,997. Tufts opposed. Webster not present for this vote.

At this point in the meeting Selectman Webster returned.

Clark asked to have a discussion on the MBTA on an upcoming agenda.

Clark questioned when the LSIS extra information would be discussed on an agenda, and noted he hoped at the 2/22/99 meeting.

Clark questioned when the merit pay issue would be on the agenda. Hardin noted it would be on the 2/22/99 agenda.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 11:10PM.

APPROVED________________________________

DATED_________________________________