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

Selectman Carla Goodwin absent.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 3/1/99.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 3/8/99, as amended.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Executive Session Minutes dated 11/9/98

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

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Executive Session Minutes dated 3/8/99.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve release of Executive Session Minutes dated 6/8/92.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve release of Executive Session Minutes dated 8/24/92.

Roger Hill in attendance. Hardin read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Roger Hill gave a brief explanation.

Lois Ryan, 215 Main Street noted she didn’t donate her land previously, and she didn’t cash the $50.00 check. She noted that she had inquired at the beginning where the utility wires were going and she was told "out back". She noted that she called when she was recently notified of the utility easement, but no one called her back. Hill explained where the poles will be placed and noted they will be marked within the next two weeks. Ms. Ryan questioned removing the tree in front of her property now instead of waiting, but Hill noted it is up to Lorusso to do.

Richard Connolly - Business owner corner of Main and Center Streets noted he had a copy of the easement plan and had concerns that the easement will take the left hand front corner of his building. He expressed concern with three telephone poles being in a small area. Hill noted there will only be two poles. Connolly expressed concern that the poles will block his signage, and questioned why the utilities can’t be put underground. Hill explained the situation with the wires on Center, Main and Lincoln streets. He noted he is trying to locate wires so they won’t block the building signage. He noted he will get out this week to mark where the poles will be placed. He noted they will only take what is necessary for the easement and will adjust the takings accordingly. Hill noted he will be present during the actual placement of the poles/wires.

At this point the Public Hearing was closed.

Attorney Lou Cassis, Attorney John Keach, Detective Larry Cole, Chief Stanley Bates, Ambalal Patel in attendance.

Hardin read the notice and opened the hearing. At this point Hardin swore in all those who intended to testify.

Cassis noted that he had already discussed the situation with Attorney Keach and the So. Easton Variety will not be contesting the facts.

Detective Cole read the incident into the record. (Report on file in the Selectmen’s Office). Cassis noted that based on the admission he would find the establishment guilty on Count #1, but didn’t think there was evidence to support Count #2. Cassis noted that last spring the Town conducted a Sting that this establishment failed, and was sent a warning letter, that could have been appealed but was not.

Keach noted his clients have been straight forward, but they didn’t receive any letter on the Sting. Keach noted a letter to the establishment from SERSG commending them on checking ID’s to avoid minors buying cigarettes. Keach noted the owner doesn’t wish to derive a living by making money selling alcohol to children, and asked for a reprimand and to let the owner continue his business. Keach noted that sometimes there is a language barrier for his clients. Keach noted the alcohol is only there as a convenience to his patrons.

Webster questioned if the owner and clerks have attended the Police dept. training. Keach stated no, but they will in the future. Webster questioned when the current owner took over. Keach noted it was in 1996. Keach noted his client will be accepting of instructions from the Board and that they know this is serious stuff.

Clark noted there have been no problems here in 10 years. Clark noted the tobacco sting is separate from alcohol stings. Clark noted that the comment of a language barrier bothers him, in particular where the sale of alcohol is concerned.

Attorney Cassis noted that in fact a letter RE: the sting was sent to So. Easton Variety on 7/2/98, so they did receive it. Keach questioned if it went Certified mail.

Tufts questioned what Keach meant by the language barrier comment. Keach noted it’s not a problem in doing business, but again stated that the owner didn’t receive this letter.

There was much confusion as to the receipt of the letter RE: the previous offense. Cassis showed Keach and his client the signed return receipt requested card. Keach stated his client didn’t sign this card.

Tufts noted that the previous owner Mr. Kelleher ran a good shop. Tufts expressed concern with two offenses within a short time and would recommend a three day suspension. Tufts noted they are located very close to a school, the SE Regional. Tufts again noted this is a serious precedent in a short time.

Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, to suspend the Malt and Wine Package Store License for So. Easton Variety for three days, and that the owner and clerks must attend the Police Dept. training, was not voted at this time.

Hardin noted that the post office wouldn’t falsify the document in question, and someone from the establishment had to have signed that certified mail card.

Webster noted there was a similar incident recently and they also had no police training and didn’t ask for an ID when they sold to a minor. Webster noted there was a suspension of the license in that case also and that this is a serious offense. Keach asked that the days be on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Clark suggested 4/5, 4/6, and 4/7/99.

At this point in the meeting the Board requested a copy of the previous suspension letter. It was noted that the previous establishment with the same offense, was given a 7 day suspension. At this point Webster withdrew her second to the motion.

At this point Clark seconded Tufts’ motion, and it was voted 3-1. Webster opposed. Webster noted that the Board needs to be consistent and this should have been a 7 day suspension also.

At this point the Hearing was closed.

Roger Hill in attendance and gave a brief explanation, reviewing his memo to the Board of 3/15/99.

Webster questioned if there will be a widening of Prospect St. Hill gave a brief explanation of the process in place. Hill noted that abutters brought up the widening issue as their concern. Hill noted a meeting that will be taking place on 3/30/99 with the abutters. Hill noted that with this project safety is foremost for the public, in particular the residents of Prospect St.

On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted 3-1 to approve the Bid as recommended by the DPW Director to Leica Geosystems Inc., in the amount of $81,271.50. Clark opposed.

Hardin read the request. On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve the request (see attached).

ARTICLES 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend dismissal to the ATM of Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, 13.

ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval to the ATM of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

ARTICLE 15 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend dismissal of Article 15 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 16 - On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 16 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 17 - On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 17 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 18 - On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend Article 18 in the amount of $4,096.36 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 21 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 21 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 22 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 22 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 27 - On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted 3-1 to recommend approval of Article 27 to the ATM. Tufts opposed.

ARTICLES 28, 29, 30 - On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Articles 28, 29, 30 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 31 - On Tufts’ motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Article 31 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 32 - On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 32 to the ATM.

ARTICLE 35 - On Webster’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Article 35 to the ATM.

ARTICLES 37, 38, 39, 40 - Tufts’ motion to recommend approval of Articles 37, 38, 39, 40 based on the recommendation of the DPW and Planning Board, did not receive a second.

ARTICLE 45 - Tufts’ motion, seconded by Hardin, to recommend approval of Article 45 to the ATM, did not pass with a 2-2 vote. Hardin, Tufts in favor.

ARTICLES 51, 52 - On Clark’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of Articles 51, 52 to the ATM.

Paicos noted/reviewed Budget Change Memo’s 3 & 4.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SE Regional Budget in the amount of $256,170.

On Clark’s motion seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call to appoint Michael Carey to the Recreation Commission to fulfill the unexpired term of Michael Gallahue.

Clark expressed concern that there was no meeting on 3/15/99, and he was never notified. Clark expressed concern that there is no schedule established.

Clark noted the government announced that the CPI is 1.2%

Clark noted that he had voted no on the $81,000+/- electronic device. Clark questioned when this will be used, what cities and towns currently use this equipment, and what are the warranties. Clark expressed concern with the training costs involved.

Clark noted the roll-off truck needed a clutch repaired and questioned if it was. Paicos stated he would check, but he thought it was all set. Clark noted that the Board voted to lease the roll-off truck and it ended up being bought.

At this point in the meeting Tufts asked under a point of order "Why Fred didn’t ask these questions earlier when the DPW Director was present and could have given him answers"? Clark noted that Tufts was interrupting him, and Tufts noted he interjected his comment under a legal point of order. The Chair asked Clark to continue with Selectmen’s notes.

Clark noted that Raynham is going forward with the public records suit, and questioned the status of our Town talking with Reps. Paicos noted he had meetings with both Sen. Sprague and Rep. Flynn. Paicos noted he called Raynham and asked them to hold off pursuing the lawsuit. He noted our Representatives are putting pressure on the MBTA to produce materials requested. Paicos noted that Raynham has agreed to hold off on a lawsuit and that they want to be on the same page as Easton on this issue.

Clark RE: Town Meeting Procedure Changes noted the school’s input was negative, and questioned why this came to the Board 8 years later. Paicos noted it was at the Board of Selectmen’s request that information be solicited.

Michael Sites in attendance.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to accept the gift of land at Lewis Farms known as Parcel B, for 18.05 acres. (see attached)

Webster questioned the status of the Municipal Building Committee. Paicos noted the advertisement for committee members will be in the paper this Sunday.

Paicos noted for the public’s information that the lawsuit between the Town of Stoughton and owners at Chestnut Knoll, was resolved in favor of the Easton residents.

Paicos noted that Sen. Sprague sent an update on the Ch. 90 money situation, and he will put it in the I&N.

Paicos noted that Sen. Sprague is also working on the Allen Road sidewalks project as well as the redesign of the Turnpike Street intersection.

Chairman Allen Barron, Robert Hicks, David Brown, Heidi Churchill, Christopher D’Arpino in attendance.

Barron noted that the personnel director is the only difference between the two recommendations in the Budget. Barron noted that Paicos gave the Committee the proposed job description , but this still remains the only difference between the Selectmen and the Committee’s recommendations.

Paicos noted he will be meeting with the Committee on 3/24/99 and will explain the recent funding memo.

Clark read from a prepared statement (see attached) and asked several questions of the Committee. Paicos stated that he could answer the questions, but was not given the opportunity.

Tufts questioned the Committee’s opinion on changing the timing of the ATM to later in the year. Barron noted that last year there were 12 change memos and it got very confusing. Barron noted that this year there are only three so far, which hasn’t been so bad. Barron noted he wants to prevent a STM like the one we had last fall. Barron noted he feels it is up to the Selectmen’s judgement when to hold the ATM.

Tufts noted he wants to be done with the operating budget in April and use the STM for capital issues, landfill and trash. H. Churchill expressed concern with approving the budget at the ATM due to the school Budget not being finalized yet. Paicos noted that based on a recent press conference RE: Ch. 70 aid he is fairly confident the Senate and House will insist on extra money coming to the communities, but the problem is that we may not know until July. Paicos noted we can go back in the fall to a STM to accept and disseminate the extra money.

At this point the Joint Hearing was closed.

At 9:25PM, on Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn.

APPROVED________________________________

DATED_________________________________