Minutes

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

December 9, 2009

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

Absent:  Ed Larkin and Leo Cakounes

Others present:  County Commissioner William Doherty; Assembly Delegate George Bryant; Paul Niedzwiecki, Executive Director, Cape Cod Commission; and Diane C. Thompson, Assembly Clerk.

Chair Fred Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.

The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of November 23rd.  All voted in favor with Charlotte Striebel and Sheila Lyons abstaining because they were not present at the meeting.

The committee determined that its next meeting would be January 4, 2010, at 4:00 p.m.

Chair Gaechter began the meeting by recommending that the committee continue to go through the Charter page by page listing major topics members want to go over.   He asked that committee members not discuss the topics being listed at that meeting.  The list of topics are attached and considered a part of the minutes.

The committee continued discussion on Article 3.

Greg Milne said the Charter would be cleaner if it said that two County Commissioners cannot be from the same town.

Sheila Lyons said as it stands now there are the County Commissioners, and we have a County Administrator who is also the County Treasurer and Treasurer of the Retirement Board and the Cape & Vineyard Co-op.  A lot of people have discussed the fact that he wears a lot of hats.

Clerk Thompson noted that the County Administrator is actually the Director of Finance not the County Treasurer.  There is another person who fills that position.

Ron Bergstrom said the Charter states that there shall be a Director of Finance.

Sheila Lyons said yes he is the Director of Finance and the County Administrator.  She wondered what people’s feelings are about that.  Where are the checks and balances?  Where is someone being held accountable?

Bill Doherty said the County put one person in the two positions because of cost savings that were needed, but there has always been a separation of the two offices.  He said he argued for the retention of the two offices.  The way it was presented is that in the budget the two offices are separated.     The County Administrator/Director of Finance didn’t see an increase in his salary by assuming both positions.  Bill Doherty said he has never been in a place where the CEO is the CFO but he has complete trust in the County Administrator.  The question does come up. What would be in the best interest of the County – perhaps, not one person filling both positions?

Clerk Thompson said the County Treasurer provides added oversight over financial issues. After the positions were in essence combined because one person filled both jobs, very specific duties were delegated and assumed by the County Treasurer so that there are checks and balances.  The auditors were consulted on this and, also, the auditors have been asked to provide checks and balances on that issue over the years.  The auditors are hired by the Assembly of Delegates.

Ronald Bergstrom said under executive powers, Section 3 – 2 and 3 – 3, it spells out what the County Commissioners do.  Under Section 3 – 4 they can seek input and delegate responsibilities.

Bill Doherty said when hiring the Cape Cod Commission Executive Director, the County Commissioners sought input from the Cape Cod Commission executive committee.  It is common practice.

Greg Milne said in that section and elsewhere there are broad blanket statements about powers and duties, and then it gives more specific duties.  There are structural problems with the document.

Mike Corgan suggested that the document be more specific and avoid ambiguity.

Ron Bergstrom said we want to make sure there are no competing powers.  Ultimately all power goes back to the Executive Branch.

Charlotte Striebel referred the committee to the Administrative Code.  She stated that the Administrative Code is the document where it spells things out.

Fred Gaechter said we want to make sure the Charter is clear and that the Charter doesn’t conflict with the Administrative Code.  He said in paragraph 2, Section 3 – 2, general  supervision, there is a question again about the hierarchy.  We need a flow chart.  We don’t know what general supervision means.

Sheila said ultimately in the end the County Commissioners take responsibility.  The County Commissioners are responsible for hiring and firing but the every day oversight is with the County Administrator and the department managers.

Fred Gaechter said there is one point in the whole document about who writes evaluations.  That needs to be tied together.

Charlotte Striebel read the language in the beginning of the Administrative Code.  She suggested that both documents need to be looked at by the committee.  She would not want all of the details that are in the Administrative Code in the Charter.

Teresa Martin agreed with Charlotte.  She said the Charter is the “what” and the “how” belongs in the Administrative Code.  It makes her uncomfortable to put the “how” in the Charter.  Teresa said if the committee gets bogged down with the discussion being very detailed she is concerned that the committee won’t be as useful as it could be.

Fred Gaechter said the voters of Cape Cod have a say in what is in the Charter but not in the Administrative Code.  If we want the towns to say what the powers and duties are of the County Commissioners it should be stated in the Charter.  We need to be careful about what should be voted on by the public.

Ron Bergstrom read Charter sections that define the responsibilities of County Commissioners and the County Administrator.  Much of the language is the same.  Where is the day-to-day supervision?

Sheila Lyons said if there is a department that is not meeting its goals it is discussed with the County Administrator.  If the department manager doesn’t respond then the County Commissioners put pressure on the County Administrator.

Fred Gaechter questioned in Section 3 – 8 the word “every” in that every order, ordinance, resolution or other vote of the Assembly of Delegates must be put before the County Commissioners.

The committee questioned the difference between emergency ordinances and notification and regular ordinances.

Teresa Martin asked if there is inconsistency of 2 – 8 (e)  with section 3 – 8.

Fred Gaechter asked about an emergency ordinance being automatically repealed after the 61st day.   He asked if this bothered other committee members and should it be looked at.

Bill Doherty said emergency ordinances are then replaced by an ordinance so that the issue can be fully vetted.

Under Section 2 – 10,  Filling of Vacancies, the committee thought the timeframe is too short for towns to take action and that this should be looked at.

It was suggested that in 3 – 9, vacancies, add at end the word “immediately”.

Fred Gaechter asked if in Section 3 – 10 it is still realistic to impose a residency requirement for the County Administrator.

Charlotte Striebel referred the committee to the recommendation of the 05-06 Charter Review Committee to eliminate this requirement.

Ron Bergstrom questioned that in Section  3 – 10 (b), Compensation, that it may not be lowered during the tenure of the person in the position.

The committee discussed supervision issues and again reiterated the need for a flow chart.

The committee examined Article 4.

Under Article 4 -1, (a) look at the language; and (b) remove the Sheriff language.

The committee questioned the relationship of the Register of Deeds to the County.

In Section 4-2, Fred Gaechter said there is too much administrative language that shouldn’t be in the Charter.

The committee asked how the Assembly and County Commissioners exercise power over regional planning.

Fred Gaechter questioned language in the Charter about the Personnel System.

The committee questioned the method of reorganization of county departments or agencies and asked what happens if the reorganization by the County Commissioners is not agreed to by the Assembly of Delegates.

The committee meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

At the Committee meeting of January 4, 2010 these minutes were approved with eight in favor and one abstaining.