Minutes

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

March 1, 2010

Committee members present: Fred Gaechter, Chair; Charlotte Striebel; Teresa Martin; Mike Corgan; Sheila Lyons; Leo Cakounes; and Greg Milne

Absent: Ed Larkin and Ronald Bergstrom

Others present:  County Commissioner Mary Pat Flynn; Wendy Northcross and Elliot Carr, Cape Cod Business Roundtable; Kevin Howard, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce; Maggie Geist, APCC; and Jennie Morey, Assistant to Assembly Clerk.

Chair Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:04 p.m.

Chair Gaechter informed the Committee that the minutes of the last meeting were not available.  The minutes for February 24th and March 1st will be approved at the next meeting.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the agenda with the exception of the League of Women Voters who were not present.  The League will be asked to meet with the committee at their next meeting.  The committee voted all in favor of the agenda, as amended.

Chair Gaechter introduced the representative of the Business Roundtable, Elliot Carr, and the representative of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, Kevin Howard.  Elliot Carr distributed paperwork that outlined their testimony concerning the review of the Charter.  The paperwork submitted by the Business Roundtable is attached and considered a part of the minutes.

The beginning of the testimony had the Preamble to the Home Rule Charter and Mr. Carr was very impressed with that section.  The Preamble reads well and is outstanding.  The uniqueness of Cape Cod and the purpose of regionalization are expressed well in the Preamble.

The testimony has 7 topics that the Roundtable believes are good examples of what needs there are in the County.  Relying solely on towns to deal with regional issues is not feasible and there is a need for the County Government to increase its role.

There are new problems that the County is faced with that cross town lines such as wastewater, pond studies, etc…  It would be wise if all 15 towns came together to get a stronger sense of collaboration on these new problems.

Mr. Howard read the current concerns of the Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce to the Committee.  Their concerns are about the region’s ability to identify, plan, and implement solutions to address crucial regional issues.  It is not feasible or economically sound for individual towns to finance and tackle regional issues.

The concerns went on to add that the time and necessity is upon the County to realize the economies of cooperation and singular solutions to our common challenges.

The testimony includes suggestions regarding the strengthening of Barnstable County Regional Government, such as developing a mission statement, having greater collaboration among parties with shared interests, and creating a viable working structure.

Mr. Howard gave details on sections A, B, C, and D in the submitted documentation.  Section A is to expand the County Commissioners seats from 3 to 5.  Section B is to dissolve the current Assembly of Delegates and replace it with a body comprising a single appointed representative from each town to act as a finance board. Section C is for modification of all regional subsidiary groups currently working independently, and Section D is to charge the County Commissioners to appoint a County Administrator with greater executive responsibilities.

Mr. Howard stated that the changes that could be implemented for the legislative hurdles the County is faced with has a strong position that maybe helpful.  The model to follow would be much the same as the 21st Century Task Force who reviewed the Cape Cod Commission.

Mr. Howard closed with statements read from the testimony submitted on developing a clear statement of mission and goals; creating a sufficiently robust government structure to achieve goals; and to engage a thorough study and review of regional/county governance models.

Mr. Howard hopes this is helpful to the Committee to get recommendations to the Assembly started.

Mr. Carr stated that the County Administrator should have a stronger role in County government and the Assembly of Delegates, at best, needs to be improved.  There is less than 20% of the people that know of who their representative is on the Assembly so you need to make the Assembly of Delegates a more relevant body.

Mr. Howard spoke to the need for regional sustainability.  You need to be more nimble and quicker in reactions and the Assembly of Delegates is not set up to do that.

Delegate Striebel spoke to people not knowing about the Assembly of Delegates. In the past few years since the Assembly meetings are being taped and shown on TV there are more people aware of the Assembly.  The meetings being televised have brought more information to people regarding the Assembly of Delegates.

Delegate Cakounses addressed the issues for the increase of County Commissioners and how their representation could resemble State representatives.  You may need to have good compensation to attract better people but where will the funds come from.

Delegate Cakounses pointed out that dissolving the Assembly of Delegates, not go to the voters, and appoint officials to represent the people of Cape Cod would be a drastic re-structure of County Government.

Mr. Carr stated that the Roundtable and Chamber have discussed several different ways to vote of an Assembly of Delegates.  All of the ways discussed were bad.

Mr. Milne asked that when the Roundtable and Chamber had their deliberation was there a desire to have a much stronger executive branch and no interest in the County having a legislative branch.  When building the County you needed to have a seperation of legislative and executive branches.  In the State this is necessary but it may no longer be needed on the County level.

Mr. Howard explained that along with Mr. Carr they would like to look into other Counties and do further research on their structure.  There is a need to see what is being done elsewhere.

Delegate Martin asked if the Roundtable and Chamber thinks that Barnstable County is simply made up of a body of 15 towns or a whole bunch of people throughout the County.  It is best to extract the best parts of town government and the executive branch then work with the Assembly of Delegates to improve their structure.

Ms. Geist stated that there are huge issues and the towns cannot solve these issues.  She believes that a comprehensive and integrated level in government needs to be addressed and created.  You need to create a County government to deal with these issues.

Commissioner Lyons stated that there is a need to provide a broader reach to address issues and we will save more by regionalization when working on these issues.  There are places within the town that regionalization can be done.

Mr. Corgan once again pointed out the language used in the Charter and how it is used to describe the County is incorrect.  The Cape Cod Regional Government is no longer a County and this needs to be corrected throughout the Charter.

Chair Gaechter asked how strong a government are the Roundtable and Chamber looking at.

Mr. Carr stated the wording is regionalization.  The County needs to be able to take a strong stance to address these major issues it is faced with.

The Committee discussed services that are available through the County that the towns have available but do not necessarily use.  The Committee discussed what services can be implemented to unify each town such as assessing.  Some services cannot be integrated but there are some out there that could be.

Mr. Howard suggested that the Committee come to some conclusions and bring it out to the public.  You will be more able to procure funds from the State and Federal Government if the County shows more unification.

Chair Gaechter thanked the Business Roundtable and Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce members and hopes to continue to communicate with them.

The next item for discussion was the proposed resolution to extend the timeframe for the Charter Review Committee.  The Committee discussed the limitations of the resolution and not being able to continue this Committee when the new Assembly of Delegates is in place.  The proposed resolution provides a solution for this problem by asking that the new Assembly of Delegates re-establish the Charter Review Committee so that it can complete its work.

The proposed resolution also states that a report will be given by this Committee in April of 2010 providing recommendations for the Assembly to consider. The proposed resolution is considered a part of these minutes.

Mr. Corgan made a Motion to approve the proposed resolution as written, Delegate Cakounses seconded the motion and all voted in favor.

The Committee asked that the proposed resolution be e-mailed to the Delegates prior to its submission by Speaker Bergstrom at the Assembly’s meeting on March 3rd.  The Committee hopes that this will give the Delegates a chance to review the proposed resolution and possibly vote at the same meeting.  The  Committee feels that it is necessary to know the outcome of this proposed resolution regarding its timeframe so they will know how to proceed in the near future.

One of the things the Committee talked about is taking out the personnel bylaws in the Charter.  The Administrative Code has personnel bylaws and you would only need to make sure the Charter personnel section is included in the Administrative Code.

Mr. Corgan introduced his recommendation to remove the Personnel section of the Charter.  This does not belong in the Charter and is already established in the County’s Administrative Code.

Mr. Corgan reviewed both Personnel sections and finds there is no apparent differences but asks that the County Administrator and his assistant look at the two sections to make sure nothing is missed.

Mr. Corgan made a Motion to remove Section 9-8, Section 9A-1, and Section 9B-1 from the Charter and make sure these sections are incorporated in the appropriate personnel rules.

Mr. Milne seconded the motion.  The Committee asked to amend the Motion to include Section 9-7 in its entirety as well.

Mr. Corgan amended the Motion, Mr. Milne seconded the amendment, and all voted in favor of the removal of all sections in the motion in their entirety.

The Committee will hold their next meeting on Wednesday, March 10th at 4:00 p.m.

The Committee asked that the League of Women Voters be contacted and asked if they could attend the next meeting of the Committee.

The tentative agenda will include a discussion with the League of Women Voters, the Committee’s reaction to the testimony of the Business Roundtable, discussion of the memos from County Counsel, discussion of the near-term recommendations to the Assembly e.g., Charter Review Committee process, discussion on the next steps assuming Assembly approval of the timeline extension, and discussion on outside Counsel/Consultation.

The meeting adjourned at 5:41 p.m.

At the Committee meeting on March 10, 2010 these minutes were approved with all in favor.


Testimony of the Cape Cod Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce Concerning Review of the Barnstable County Charter

March 1 2010

“We the people…do reestablish for ourselves and for our communities the means and the structure to deal with regional issues which transcend the existing boundaries of municipal governments.  This revised home rule charter for Barnstable County places the power and responsibility to deal with the unique problems of Barnstable County in a regional government directly responsible to the people of Barnstable County.”

Preamble of Barnstable County Charter

The following testimony is presented to:

• Re-affirm the need for strong regional government on Cape Cod

• Identify areas that could strengthen current regional governance

• Outline a plan for moving the process forward

The Need for Regional Government for Cape Cod

New England has a long tradition of strong town government. This tradition has been reinforced in Massachusetts by abolishment or weakening of county government in most areas of the state, with the exception of Barnstable County, in which regional government remains intact and strengthened following passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act.

Regional government has been retained in Barnstable County because of the recognition that Cape Cod is a single geographic entity whose great beauty and natural resources have made it an internationally recognized destination.  Our natural resources—our waters, dunes, woodlands and beaches—are not confined within the political borders of the 15 individual towns.  Due to the Cape’s unique location and our cultural and economic commonalities, our regional challenges also require united solutions and strong centralized leadership to address the next century of issues that have no town borders.  These regional issues include:

• Housing

• Transportation

• Economic development

• Environment

• Energy

• The need for adequate wastewater infrastructure

• Shoreline preservation and access in an era of rising sea level.

Current Concern

These problems have become more severe in recent years.  The Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, and their constituents, are concerned about our region’s ability to identify, plan, and implement solutions to address these crucial regional issues.

We do not believe it is feasible or economically sound for individual towns to finance and tackle regional issues on an ad hoc basis.   The current economic downturn has stretched local government budgets to razor thin margins with triage of the next budget crisis the sole priority of town officials who have neither the time, money, or resources to look 5, 10, or 25 years ahead to regional issues.  Further, our region’s issues are not fundamentally local issues; clean water from our shared aquifer and waste water entering our tributaries have no boundaries and no single town should be held responsible for its problem or for its solution.  Last, Cape Cod residents and taxpayers can ill afford to develop and implement 15 different solutions in 15 different places for independent resolution of the same problems faced by all Cape Cod towns. Stronger county governance is not a panacea for all of our region’s ills, and we are aware that an unchecked county government has the ability to infringe on our strong heritage of local governance; however the time and necessity is upon us to realize the economies of cooperation and singular solutions to our common challenges.

Strengthening Barnstable County Regional Government

The Barnstable County Charter clearly states the need for regional government to:

  • “develop effective services to meet problems, which cross municipal boundaries”
  • “provide sophisticated services, which might be beyond the ability of a single community  to support”
  • “…obtain the efficiencies and economies of scale”

The intent of the charter is to give to the Cape Cod regional government the ability to identify and establish county-wide priorities and programs and the resources to plan, implement, and execute the objectives necessary for regional solutions.

The language above states there is a need to provide “effective” and “sophisticated” services that are beyond the ability of a single community and to provide economies of scale.  Some thoughts for improvement include:

1. Developing a Mission Statement

Lacking is a mission statement that articulates a vision for integrated and comprehensive provision of services that addresses the critical issues facing Barnstable County citizens. The absence of a cohesive mission within the charter seems[MG1] to be reflected in the structure and function of the existing departments within county government.

Barnstable County provides a diverse number of services to the region, from horticulture to electricity provision, from the county dredge to grant writing, from precipitation data to GIS services, to name a few. In some cases county departments address very critical issues, such as water quality and wastewater, although in that instance it is three different departments—the Cape Cod Commission, Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment and the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative—that work on this issue.

2. Greater Collaboration Among Parties with Shared Interests

In addition to the diversity of the issues addressed by different departments and the overlap between or among departments on issues, it also appears that the departments function to varying degrees in silo-fashion, and that several departments are backed by advisory groups or commissions made up of representatives from individual towns. Thus it seems that the focus, structure and function of the departments is not suited to addressing critical regional issues through implementation of an overall plan and central leadership.

3. Creating a Viable Working Structure

Finally, the current structure of County Government is inadequate and fundamentally flawed to be an effective vehicle to address and resolve regional issues.  Barnstable County needs stronger executive leadership and the ability to make tactical decisions to implement regional plans and programs, rather than seek unending consensus on the “best course of action.”   The present structure of the Assembly of Delegates ensures that the focus remain on the town politics and self-interest, rather than the region’s best interest.  Simply, our current county government structure fosters parochialism rather than cooperation and common solutions.  It’s time to create a structure that will truly promote regionalism. We suggest that the Charter be amended to:

  1. Expand County Commissioner seats from 3 to 5.  Three seats would be elected to represent the regions of Upper, Mid and Lower Cape and two seats would be elected to represent the Cape at large.  These Commissioners would be paid members of the executive branch of county government (Paid Commissioner roles will help to attract well qualified candidates who are willing to spend the time and share their expertise on the challenges that lie ahead.  Two at large Commissioners will encourage the regional viewpoint.)
  1. Dissolve the current Assembly of Delegates, and replace it with a body comprising a single appointed representative from each town (a Town’s Selectmen or Councilor, preferably the Chair) to act as the County’s Finance Board.  To make this an effective structure there must be a strong connection between Town and County governance. Selectmen are already elected, have high familiarity of the town issues, and are highly identifiable in their communities.  This Board, which had been in place previously, would have authority to approve the budget, without line item veto power.  The new body would meet quarterly on regional issues or those that include more than one town.
  1. Ensure modification of all regional subsidiary groups currently working independently (i.e. Cape Cod Commission, Cape Light Compact, Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative, etc.) to report directly to County Government administrator and ensure each subsidiary group maintains an advisory board or committee to confer with County Government.
  1. Charge the County Commissioners to appoint a County Administrator with the executive responsibility to lead and execute regional initiatives as directed and relieve the position of its fiscal responsibility as the County’s financial officer.

Going Forward

Forty-eight of the fifty states have county governments.  Outside of New England and a few other areas of the country, county government typically plays a far stronger role in delivery of services and government functions.

The Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce believe that the dire economic situation demands that our region explore and implement more cost-effective methods to deliver programs and services. The question is whether the benefit of having four levels of government (federal, state, regional, local) is worth the cost to taxpayers[MG2] .  With that in mind, we see the need for the appointment of community stakeholders to move the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee toward implementation.

As was successful with the 21st Century Task Force, appointed by the County Commissioners to review the Cape Cod Commission, a committee of community stakeholders should be assembled to move the Charter Review Committee recommendation forward.  Specifically, the community stakeholders committee should be charged with researching other governance models across the country to analyze and identify those services and regional issues that should be managed on the county level to bring economies of scale to all Cape towns as well as making recommendations for its implementation.  Critically, the community stake holders must find solutions that satisfy the best interest of the county, efficiencies for the towns, cost savings or mitigation for the tax payers; while providing the services and solutions that are needed for our region and its population.  Given the impending deadline for the review process, we urge the Charter Review Committee to immediately assemble and appoint the working group of community stakeholders.

In summary, our regional government needs to:

1. Develop a clear statement of mission and goals;

2. Create a sufficiently robust government structure to achieve its goals; and

3. Engage a thorough study and review of regional/county governance models designed to improve coordination between town and county government and create a favorable value model to its citizens for the services that are provided.

CAPE COD REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES

In the Year Two Thousand and Ten

Proposed Resolution 10-01

To extend the timeframe for the Charter Review Committee to complete its work to December 31, 2010.

WHEREAS, The charge of the Charter Review Committee is to review the Barnstable County Home Rule Charter, as amended, and Ordinances of the County, for the purpose of determining if any amendments or revisions are necessary or desirable;

WHEREAS, It has been determined that the Charter Review Committee must make its report to the Assembly of Delegates by April 7, 2010 (please refer to attached timeline);

WHEREAS, The Charter Review Committee held its first meeting on October 14, 2009;

WHEREAS, The Charter Review Committee cannot complete a full evaluation of, and make appropriate recommendations regarding, the Barnstable County Home Rule Charter and Ordinances by April 7, 2010;

WHEREAS, There have been no Charter changes in 10 years it is, thereby, deemed prudent to conduct a complete review and evaluation with the necessary time to do so;

WHEREAS, The Charter Review Committee believes in the importance of having significant public outreach as part of this process, which also cannot be accomplished within such a short period of time;

WHEREAS, The Manual of Governance, Section 20 (a), paragraph 2, states that all committees, other than standing committees, automatically expire at the end of the elective term of Assembly members, and that date is December 31, 2010;

WHEREAS, The Charter Review Committee requests that the timeframe to complete its work be extended to December 31, 2010; and

WHEREAS, The Charter Review Committee notes its intention to ask the next session of the Assembly of Delegates to re-establish the Charter Review Committee so that it can complete its work no later than December 31, 2011, for consideration at the November 2012 election – the next opportunity to include a Charter revision on an election ballot.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates:

The timeframe for the Charter Review Committee to complete its work is extended to December 31, 2010.

The Charter Review Committee shall file a report with the Assembly of Delegates on April 7, 2010, providing recommendations for the Assembly of Delegates to consider for the November 2010 election.  Subsequent recommendations shall be filed with the Assembly of Delegates in December 2010 to be considered for the November 2012 election.

Submitted by:

Ronald Bergstrom, Speaker

On Behalf of the Charter Review Committee

March 3, 2010

Bob Murray  lack of a cohesive mission

statement.  Should that be an item for the charter Review Committee to

develop?  Should the BRT/Chamber develop a draft of one?

[MG1]

[MG2]Bob Murray the question is

asking whether or not the four levels of government are worth the cost

to taxpayers.  That’s a question that is too easily answered with a

“no”.  That question should not be asked alone, but rather with the

question, “What is the cost of not having that 4th layer for Cape Cod?”

Just the comparative cost of targeted sewering vs. total sewering

demonstrates the value of that 4th layer, if it is programmed and

structured correctly.  And the cost savings of regionalization should be

a part of the equation.