SELECTMEN’S MEETING MINUTES
MAY 29, 2001
The Board of Selectmen met this evening with Chairman William Hardin presiding. In attendance were Jeffrey Tufts, Leo Harlow, Patricia Webster, Carla Goodwin and Town Adm. Kevin Paicos.
On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 5/21/01.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Harlow, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 5/22/01.
On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Executive Session Minutes dated 5/21/01.
Harlow noted the upcoming dedication of the corner of Williams and Reynolds Streets to Private First Class Robert E. Haglund on 6/3/01, and noted all are welcome to attend the ceremony.
Peter Buckley in attendance.
Buckley noted he lives in Stoughton and is also a Constable there. He noted he serves papers for various lawyers and for DOR-Child Services. He noted he needs to be a Constable in at least one community in Bristol County and that is why he has put this application in to Easton.
Hardin asked if he would serve papers pro-bono for the Town if necessary and he stated yes.
On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Webster the Board voted unanimously to appoint Peter Buckley as a Constable in the Town of Easton for a three year term, contingent on verification of the names and addresses on his application and with submitting the proper bond to the Town Clerk’s office.
Paicos gave a brief explanation. Webster asked if this was put out to bid and Paicos stated he wasn’t sure as he doesn’t deal with Landfill issues. Conceison stated he wasn’t aware of this contract and neither was the Landfill Committee. Heino questioned what will they do for that kind of money.
On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board agreed to table this item to later in the meeting when Martha White and Wayne Southworth would be present.
Paicos gave a brief presentation, with highlights of the entire budget. Paicos noted the proposed deficit is $2,400,219. Goodwin noted this involved a 7% increase for the general government and 9% for school. In response to a question from Webster, Paicos gave a brief explanation of the vacation buy-back process. Webster asked why the Intern line in the Selectmen’s budget was returned. Paicos gave a brief explanation, noting the interns are the best buy for the money involved. Webster questioned the title search line and who is the attorney involved. Paicos gave a brief explanation, and noted Attorney Marzelli handles this for us.
RE: Goals & Objectives line, Webster noted she wanted this reduced to level funding, and again asked why Dept. Heads can’t go to the Carriage House, Stonehill, etc. Webster’s motion, seconded by Harlow, to reduce that line item to $2,000 was not voted at this time. Paicos noted that 1/3 of the retreat costs were for the Selectmen to attend last spring, and we can’t conduct both if this is level funded. Paicos noted that for many years we did the retreat locally and we dealt with constant interruptions/intrusions. Paicos noted we couldn’t get done here what we accomplish in RI. Paicos noted the RI facility is a campus style, and is very modest. Paicos noted the professional facilitator is the bulk of the cost and there is no way around paying the money for the facilitator. Webster noted she doesn’t think the cost for the Selectmen’s seminar was 1/3 of the cost. Webster noted she doesn’t think the retreat as it is conducted is necessary under the conditions of the money crisis. Paicos noted the cost for the Selectmen was, in fact, about 1/3 of the cost. Paicos noted he sees this as vital to planning the Goals and Objectives and establishing the strategic plan for the community. Tufts asked what does $4,000 buy. Paicos noted this is a streamlined effort with the Consultant for two days, and then a half day seminar with the Selectmen. Paicos noted he does everything he can in lieu of having to pay the consultant. Hardin questioned do we wish to continue with the goals and objectives process or not.
Vote on the motion did not pass with a 2-3 vote. Webster, Harlow in favor.
Webster noted we are supposed to go to Town Meeting in 6 days and in good faith I can’t condone an increase in staff, expenses, hours, etc., especially if the override doesn’t pass. Webster noted she has questions on budgets, in particular Town Counsel, and is not prepared to approve the budget carte blanche. Tufts noted this isn’t a carte blanche approval. Tufts noted it is foolish to strip out programs then say we need to level fund the budget. Tufts noted he doesn’t think the Town business should go on hold, we need to fund costs as they are. Tufts noted if the override doesn’t pass then we will go back and cut and the only way to cut the budget is to go over services in each department and decide which services get cut or not. Tufts noted that cutting minor expenses will not help us next year. Tufts noted he feels the budget is fairly well put together and he can agree, but doesn’t see this as carte blanche.
Webster noted we don’t even know which programs have already been cut. Paicos questioned what programs Webster was referring to. Webster stated the Senior Tax Voucher was cut. Paicos stated no it was not, it is now a direct tax offset program through the Assessors Budget. Goodwin asked for an identified philosophy of where cuts will be if the override doesn’t pass. Paicos noted he would put this together between now and the Town Meeting. Tufts noted he doesn’t want people to take offense to stating proposed cuts should the override not pass, like a threat to get the override passed.
Hardin noted he spent the weekend going line by line and this budget looks reasonable. Hardin questioned how many individual budgets each Selectman had questions on. Tufts – 2 or 3; Harlow – none; Hardin – 1; Webster – 10; Goodwin – just wants an approach to issues to warrant articles vs budget issues.
Wayne Southworth, H. Mehler, P. Downey, J. Conceison, G. Heino in attendance.
Southworth gave a brief explanation of the contract and testing involved. Southworth noted we need this work done to fulfill DEP requirements. Goodwin questioned if this was part of the 11/30/00 meeting when S. Wright came to our meeting and reviewed the needs of the landfill. Southworth stated that was correct and this is only a one year contract with SEA. In response to a question from Webster, Southworth noted that professional services don’t need to be bid. Southworth noted SEA has been the consultant and most of the cost of this contract is for lab analysis. Webster questioned the Landfill Committee input. Mehler questioned what the period of performance is. Southworth noted one year from signature of contract. Southworth noted the number of tests involved. Southworth explained the samples he wants to have done between now and 6/30. Heino noted he was confused and thought $50,000 was set aside for monitoring. Southworth noted the whole cost of this contract for a whole year is $50,000, which was budgeted. Paicos suggested a meeting with the Landfill Committee for review of the contract and then to come back to the Board for approval at the 6/4/01 meeting. Southworth noted he had no problem with that.
Harlow’s motion, seconded by Goodwin to table this item to the 6/4/01 meeting, was not voted at this time. Goodwin asked if the Landfill Committee can see these things first, then bring them to the Board. Heino questioned if this would be the first $50,000 spent for monitoring, and Southworth stated yes. R. Harb noted it is not possible for the Landfill Committee to review this by 6/4/01.
Vote on the motion was unanimous.
ARTICLE 6 – (supplemental budget article) – On Webster’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend Article 6 in the amount of $61,000 - $11,000 for Veterans Budget and $50,000 for Town Counsel Budget.
ARTICLE 7 – (sick/vacation leave) – On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to recommend dismissal of Article 7.
ARTICLE 13 – (Capital article) – Paicos noted the items proposed as capital will be cruisers, fire pumper truck and DPW plow. On Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Harlow, the Board voted unanimously to recommend dismissal of Article 13 and to revisit this in the fall at a Special Town Meeting.
ARTICLE 4 – Atty. Yvonne Gonzales and Mike Sites in attendance.
Sites gave a brief explanation and noted the negotiations could result in this article being dismissed at Town Meeting.
At this point in the meeting on Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Harlow, the Board voted unanimously by roll call to go into Executive Session for the purpose of Real Property, to return to Open Session.
Goodwin in favor, Tufts in favor, Harlow in favor, Hardin
in favor, Webster in favor.
At 9:00PM, the Board reconvened Open Session.
ARTICLE 22 – Cynthia Hargroves, Wayne Mills in attendance.
Webster questioned if anyone from the neighborhoods showed up at the 5/24 meeting. Hargroves gave a brief explanation of the meeting and her discussions with neighbors. Hargroves noted Habitat will meet with the neighbors and that W. Mills will also meet with them.
Harlow’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, to declare that the following properties are no longer needed for public purposes, and that they should therefore be made available for disposition, with the restriction that the properties be used for single-family residential development, which housing shall be affordable in perpetuity, (see attached) was not voted at this time.
Tufts expressed concern with the timing due to the deficit and gave a brief explanation of Town owned land being used. Tufts noted we need to set a policy and we need a better explanation of the Town’s involvement in this project. Tufts noted we need the Town Meeting to vote on this. Webster noted she had someone call her to say why not sell the Town owned land if we’re in a deficit. Webster also noted the need to set policies and asked for agenda time following the Town Meeting.
Vote on the motion was unanimous.
ARTICLE 33 – (citizen petition – rezoning) Robert Gilmore, Attorney Reed in attendance. Reed gave a brief explanation of the packet sent to the Board this evening by Gilmore. Reed noted the Planning Board did not approve this article. Harlow noted he would go with M. Lincoln’s letter of 1971, and that he wants to see an industrial part there. Hardin expressed concern with the possibility of condos going in there. Paicos noted the Planning Board is on record as opposing this article and urged the Board to be cautious about opposing the Planning Board. Paicos noted he would rather the Board meet with the Planning Board prior to TM. Tufts asked why are we trying to act on this article without the Planning Board here. Tufts suggested let’s figure this out and schedule it for 6/4 prior to the TM. Webster apologized to Gilmore, and noted she is not biased to the proposal, but in fairness to the Planning Board, she wants them to come in.
White noted the Planning Board records match what Attorney Reed has stated. Paicos noted he found out today that the Planning Board couldn’t attend and again recommended the Board meet with them on 6/4.
ARTICLE 3 – (Paicos Legal fees) Attorney Richard Dailey in attendance. Harlow noted he never saw the paperwork on this and questioned what were the charges. Paicos noted there was a letter in the file which gave complete explanation on this from Dailey. Paicos stated Webster approached him on this following last week’s meeting with many questions, so the Board has obviously seen this letter. Paicos noted Dailey was here to answer questions. Webster asked for more documentation on why discussions with Attorney J. Toomey are billed on this. Dailey gave a brief explanation, noting he has no idea of the actual complaint that was filed with the Commission, or who filed it. Dailey noted that the two issues are inextricably entwined, someone not wanting the library and wanting Paicos gone.
Tufts noted he didn’t remember ever breaking down these bills for anyone else after someone is exonerated. Tufts again stated he had never seen this done before, and stated this is similar to being victimized again. Tufts expressed concern with this violation of the rights of a person who has already been victimized by an unfounded allegation. Webster expressed concern because the Town has already paid for some of these already. Webster asked if Dailey would supply written documents to support this bill. Dailey noted this is not a duplication of billing and again stated it was absolutely necessary to discuss this with Attorney Toomey. Dailey again stated that whoever filed these charges were linked with not
wanting the library and wanting Mr. Paicos gone. Dailey again stated he is convinced the bills are properly allocated and noted the sophisticated software he uses to allocate charges. Webster noted a staff meeting and strategy listed on both bills and she doesn’t understand. Dailey noted they are very much linked. I could talk to the same person for half hour and 15 min would be one issue and the other this one. Webster noted there are listings in the bill that need further explanation. Webster noted she needs to be sure the bill is reasonable, noting we paid a large amount of attorney bills in November and we have a responsibility to be sure they are resolved and explained.
Paicos noted Webster’s comments implied my attorney would double bill this Town. Paicos stated Webster has offended me and Attorney Dailey. Paicos noted not once until my bill did anyone pick apart a legal bill, this has never been done before. Webster noted it is difficult to bring up but not intended to embarrass or delve into the accusations, but she has the right to understand this bill. Harlow noted anyone can make an accounting error and he sees nothing wrong by examining this bill. Dailey again stated he has examined this bill and the other one. Dailey noted there was actually $7,000 in billable hours that he could have, but didn’t even include in the past bill. Dailey noted this bill reflects only the amount of time for this issue. Tufts questioned if this is truly an accounting question and asked why didn’t Webster call up Dailey to ask him her questions. Tufts noted if we don’t want to see people harassed in public, then why do it this way. Tufts noted we haven’t done this with any other bill.
Paicos noted there is another article on the same warrant to pay for the legal expenses of three people who aren’t even Town employees and Webster never even asked to see the bill. Paicos stated this is politically motivated and nothing more.
Goodwin stated the aspect of Paicos being paid for services has nothing to do with paying for this legal bill.
On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Harlow, the Board voted 4-0-1 to recommend Article 3. Webster abstained.
ARTICLE 6 (Main St. bridge) – Paicos noted that neither he, the Police Chief or the DPW Director can support this expense and would recommend against this. Paicos also noted this is an esthetic issue, not a safety issue. Paicos noted the Mass. Highway standards have been met along with our own Police Chief who stated this is not about a safety issue.
Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Tufts, to not recommend Article 6 was not voted at this time. Goodwin’s amended motion, seconded by Tufts, to recommend dismissal of Article 6 did not pass with a 1-4 vote. Tufts in favor. M Papineau gave a brief explanation of the history of the project and expressed concern about children climbing up on the wall and falling in. Paicos noting his concern also for children stated we can’t design a structure that kids can’t get on top of unless it is 5-6’ tall, which no one wants to see there. Paicos noted it is virtually impossible to design a completely child proof structure. Webster gave a brief explanation of this issue. Paicos suggested going back to the original structure that the State would build for free for the Town.
Vote on the motion was 3-2. Harlow, Webster opposed.
ARTICLE 9 (asbestos abatement) – On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend Article 9.
ARTICLE 5 – (Clothing allowance – Police Chief) – Tufts’ motion, seconded by Hardin to recommend Article 5, did not pass with a 2-3 vote. Tufts, Hardin in favor.
ARTICLE 10 – (road repair) – On Harlow’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to recommend Article 10 in the amount of $40,000.
TOWN COUNSEL BUDGET – Webster noted the Board needs to have a discussion RE: use of special counsel. Paicos noted the Board needs to make that decision.
TOWN ACCOUNTANT BUDGET – Webster questioned the increase in clerical hours. Paicos gave a brief explanation of the increase in this budget, and the decrease in the Collector’s budget.
COLLECTOR/TREASURER BUDGET – Webster questioned the title search. Paicos gave a brief explanation of several parcels needing to be researched.
DATA PROCESSING BUDGET – Webster questioned the Training line. Paicos noted several people/departments use that for training.
FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET – Chief Blye in attendance. Webster questioned the issue of sick time use. Blye noted this is subject to current bargaining. Webster questioned why the transition time is only for two weeks extra money, vs a month. Paicos noted this is a strictly financial decision.
POLICE BUDGET – Deputy Chief Krajcik in attendance. Krajcik gave a brief highlight of the budget in terms of decreases/increases. Webster questioned why the canine officer needs OT money to train. Krajcik gave a brief explanation. Webster noted she wants to see a breakdown for next year similar to the Fire budget, RE: OT.
Webster questioned the situation with grants. Krajcik gave a brief explanation.
BUILDING BUDGET – Webster asked why the new inspector that is proposed is not being funded through a revolving account, vs paying employee benefits. Paicos gave a brief explanation. Webster noted she would rather do this as a consultant and stated this is a bad policy decision on the Board’s part under the financial situation. Paicos noted he will continue the hiring freeze until the fate of the override is determined in the fall, except for the in-house promotional opportunities.
DPW BUDGETS – Wayne Southworth in attendance. Southworth gave a brief explanation of the clerical position decrease in his budget. Southworth gave a brief explanation of the increase in the streetlight budget.
LIBRARY – Webster asked for a copy of the pay plan when it is completed. Paicos stated yes.
UNCALISSIFIED BUDGET – Webster questioned the line for reserve salary increases. Paicos noted this is used for merit review as well as any smaller budgets that need supplements RE: salary.
Webster noted the Committee expenses, i.e. Cable not using their budgets. Paicos noted he will keep these for one more year then he will reduce accordingly if not used.
Hardin RE: Town Counsel budget asked that individual Board members not contact Town Counsel, and stated that has been a policy of the Board for a long time. Hardin noted members should call Paicos and if he can’t answer questions, he will contact Town Counsel. Webster noted that if conflict issues come up the Board should be able to go to Town Counsel. Paicos noted that he would recommend the Board go to Town Counsel with 268A questions and have Town Counsel put opinions in writing.
Goodwin’s motion, seconded by Harlow, to recommend the FY’02 Budget as presented, was not voted at this time.
Webster again stated we shouldn’t add new hours or positions and she doesn’t support the Budget. Tufts noted he knows this is a contingent budget but it is not irresponsible unless we actually hire people until the override passes. Tufts noted the need to identify the needs regardless of the contingent budget.
Webster stated she is troubled that this Board hasn’t had a policy discussion about where we want to add positions.
Vote on the motion was 4-1. Webster opposed.
RE: notice of Habitat meeting, Paicos stated the direct abutters to the properties were notified the day after the last Selectmen’s Meeting.
RE: memo on the audit timeline, Paicos noted Wendy did a great job in her memo to the Board, outlining the issues/answers.
Hardin also noted the memo from the Town Accountant on the dateline of the audit and management letter.
Tufts expressed concern that cable was not filming the meeting. Paicos noted he would look into this.
Harlow noted the Lions Club Appliance Day scheduled for 6/16/01.
Goodwin questioned if the Board will meet at 6PM prior to the TM on 6/4/01. Hardin stated yes.
Hardin noted the excellent turnout at the Memorial Day Parade, and congratulated those involved in the planning.
D. Murphy questioned the bottom-line total of the whole budget. Paicos noted the approximate total is $45M.
D. Murphy questioned how the vote will take place where this is an override contingent budget. Paicos gave a brief explanation of the motion necessary.
D. Murphy asked when the override election will take place. Paicos noted that is up to the Board.
B. Parker questioned what the capital recommendations were from the Committee. Paicos asked Brock to call Mike Boyle, Chair of that Committee for the results.
At 11:25PM, on Harlow’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn.
APPROVED______________________________
DATED______________________________