04-14-10 Charter minutes

Minutes

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

April 14, 2010

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

Absent: Ed Larkin, Sheila Lyons, and Ronald Bergstrom

Others present:  Nancy Curley, League of Women Voters; Diane Thompson, Clerk and Jennie Morey, Assistant to the Clerk of the Assembly

Chair Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the agenda.  The Committee approved the agenda with all votes in favor.  The next item was the approval of the minutes of March 31st^. The minutes were approved the minutes with Delegate Cakounes abstaining as he was not present and all other members voted in favor.  It was noted that Delegate Cakounes relayed a message to the committee that he would not be able to attend the last meeting; Commissioner Lyons contacted Mr. Milne and stated that she would not be attending this meeting.

Chair Gaechter began the meeting asking committee members to concentrate on how to obtain public input, putting together a plan moving forward, presenting a case to the public, and presenting the Committee’s plan for recommendations.

The Committee discussed the presentation of their report to the Assembly of Delegates at their meeting on April 7^th.  The Delegates discussed the Finance and Administrator positions, recommendation #5 stating the deletion of the residency requirement, the recommendations from the Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, and the article in the Cape Cod Times.

The Committee discussed how to proceed with the time that has been given to them. The goal is to obtain input from constituents, towns, and organizations.  It was the consensus of the committee to take the following action:

1)    Conduct Regional meetings/forums in the Mid, Lower, Outer, and Upper Cape at the following locations beginning after Labor Day.

Wellfleet Council on Aging

Harwich Community Center

Barnstable Golf Course

Gus Canty Recreational Center in Falmouth

The meetings will be scheduled so that there is no conflict with Selectmen/Councilor meetings in the town where the meeting is located.   There will be one meeting per week in the early evening.

2) Conduct Organization meetings and contact by letter:

Cape Cod Business Roundtable

Cape Cod Selectmen & Councilor’s Association

APCC

League of Women Voters

Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce/local Chambers

Young Professionals

Political Parties

Committee members are going to provide contact information for organizations to the office.  The date and times are to be determined at a later time.

Chair Gaechter will draft a letter to all organizations and use the letter as a basis for a Press Release.  The Selectmen and Town Council will be informed of all meetings.

Chair Gaechter agreed to meet with the Selectmen & Council’s Association on May 14^th to give them an update.

The committee discussed an agenda and format for meetings/forums in the towns and the following was suggested:

Introduction

PowerPoint Presentation: 3 Overview Slides and 1 Issues Slide

1) Introduction

2) A statement informing people that the region has a government set up    by a Charter;

3) Show a modified organizational structure; and

4) Charter Issues

Delegate Martin said she would draft the first three slides.  She will prepare the fourth slide by only showing the heading of Charter Issues.

There will be discussion and perhaps a handout on Charter Recommendations for the 2010 election.  There will be a question and answer period.  It was noted that Assembly Delegates and County Commissioners will probably want to be present to promote the ballot question.

In the documents that are mailed out the Committee will promote the Charter website that will have information about the meetings and will include the PowerPoint presentation.

The Committee discussed stimulation of interest through Press Releases, Radio, and Television.

The next meeting of the Charter Review Committee will be on Wednesday, April 28th at 4:00 p.m.  The Agenda will include what issues to include in their presentation and to discuss the PowerPoint presentation under Charter issues.  The Committee will use the Chart of Issues that was made during their initial meetings.

Charlotte Striebel presented the committee with information that she and the Clerk obtained from the Law Library about the Mass. General Laws that govern the election of the County Commissioners.

The committee questioned this information and asked if it pertains to Barnstable County.

It was noted by Charlotte Striebel and Diane Thompson that the Barnstable County Home Rule Charter specifically states that the regional commissioners are elected in accordance with MGL, Chapter 54, Section 158.  This is the chapter of the MGLs dealing with elections and the section that deals with county commissioners.

Chair Gaechter said he would like to contact someone in the State regarding the Massachusetts General Laws and how it affects the Charter and use as an example the election of Barnstable County’s Regional Commissioners.  He said he would contact State Representative Sarah Peake for help on who to contact.  It was suggested that a member of the Committee could go to Boston to address this issue and finally obtain confirmation.

With no further business, the Committee adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

MEMO                                                                                                October 14, 2010

To:              All Town Clerks

FROM:  Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

RE:            Proposed Changes to the Barnstable County Home Rule Charter

The above committee had intended to hold public hearings on the proposed changes to the Home Rule Charter.  However, circumstances beyond our control prevented this from occurring.  We are, therefore, asking all Town Clerks to post this notice to assist voters in responding to the question that will appear on the November Ballot “Shall the revisions to the Barnstable County Charter proposed by the Assembly of Delegates be adopted?”

The proposed amendment changes pertain to Section 9-4 of the Charter:

-legal holidays falling on the first or third Wednesday of the regular meeting days of the Assembly of Delegates;

-changing the date for organization to no later than January 15 the;

statement dealing with a decision if a quorum of the Assembly of Delegates is not present

-removing reference to residency requirement for the County Administrator;

-deleting the language with the temporary absence of the County Administrator;

-deleting Sections 9-7, 9-8, 9A-1, 9B-1 which deal with personnel issues; and

-deleting language dealing with transitional and contingency components of legislation never enacted.

The Charter Review committee will also be contacting organizations in Barnstable County and holding meetings with these groups as well.

For additional information contact the office of the Assembly of Delegates at (508) 375-6762.

Minutes

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

March 24, 2010

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

Absent: Ed Larkin and Sheila Lyons

Others present:  Nancy Curley and Jari Rappaport, League of Women Voters; and Jennie Morey, Assistant to the Clerk of the Assembly

Chair Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the agenda.  The Committee approved the agenda with all votes in favor.  The next item was the approval of the minutes of March 10^th. The Committee approved the minutes, as corrected.

Delegate Striebel passed out a list of the towns voting averages identified by the precincts in each town.  The amounts listed are tallied according to the U. S. Census.  The list has been attached to these minutes.

Chair Gaechter referred to the memo done by the Clerk that addressed housekeeping items found in the 2005 report of the Charter Review Committee.  He asked that the Committee review these recommendations and go through each one to see if they should be added to the interim recommendations to the Assembly.  The Recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee and the Clerk’s memo are attached and considered a part of these minutes.

The Committee began their review of the 2005 Report for pertinent recommendations also using the Clerk’s Memorandum.

Recommendations voted by the 2010 Charter Review Committee taken from the 2005 Report and from committee members:

1)         Post Election Assembly Organization Timeline – Speaker Bergstrom made a Motion to make the above recommendation, Mr. Milne seconded the motion, and all members voted in favor.

Charter Section 2-2 (a).   Remove the first sentence and replace with the following sentence:  “In the month of January following an election cycle, the Assembly of Delegates shall meet to organize no later than the 15^th of the month.”

2)         Assembly Meetings that fall on Holidays – Speaker Bergstrom made a motion to create an ordinance for the meetings pertaining to holidays or amend the original Ordinance, Mr. Milne seconded the motion, and all members voted in favor.

Charter Section 2-2 (a).   Add the sentence “Consistent with common business practice, meetings shall not occur on legal holidays.  Should County Business be deemed as necessitating an interim meeting, a special meeting may be scheduled.”

The Committee discussed the need for the above recommendation to be added in the Charter.  It seems to be understood that meetings are not held on holidays.  It was suggested that rather than inserting this sentence into the Charter it could be done as stated in Charter Section 2-5 (d)(i) by Ordinance or an amendment could be made to the original Ordinance which established the fixed time and place and states that “If the date for any such regular meeting is a legal holiday, as established by state for federal law, the regular meeting of the Assembly for such date shall be held on the business day following such holiday.” (Ordinance 89-1)

3)         Predetermination of Lack of Quorum – Mr. Milne made a motion to make the above recommendation and add the deletion of the wording as noted.  Delegate Cakounes seconded the motion, and all members voted in favor.

Charter Section 2-5 (c). Should it be determined that a future meeting will not be represented by a quorum of Delegates, the meeting may be canceled.  Should County business be deemed as necessitating an interim meeting, a special meeting may be scheduled.

The Committee discussed this recommendation and agreed that this is reasonable.  The Committee also would like to recommend in Charter Section 2-5 (c), the first sentence, the deletion of the words “but a smaller number may meet and adjourn from time to time.”

4)         Clarify Speaker Selection Process

Charter Section 2-2 (a).  In completing the process for selecting a Speaker and Deputy Speaker, a simple majority of members present will be necessary assuming a quorum is present.

The Committee had an extensive discussion on this recommendation.  The concerns were about how many Delegates you would actually need to have a quorum, how the vote changes from the majority of Delegates to a majority of those present, and that this would allow for only 1/3 of the Assembly of Delegates present to vote.

It was pointed out that the first meeting of the Assembly of Delegates always has most of the Delegates present due to required procedures that take place.  If you have 13 Delegates there and you have 7 Delegates to vote it does not constitute the vote as currently written in the Charter for a majority of towns.

In Charter Section 2-5 (c) in the last sentence it states “The affirmative votes of delegates representing a majority of the population of Barnstable County shall be necessary to adopt any ordinance…”.  It is not clear if it is the majority of the Delegates present or if it is the majority of 51% of the population.

The Assembly of Delegates has used the majority vote of the Delegates present.  There has been concern about the power of the 3 largest towns having the majority vote.

The question is whether the Charter and the Assembly voting practices are the same.  If not either the Charter has to be changed or the change has to be done internally by the Assembly.

Speaker Bergstrom suggested that there may be a need for legal opinion.  The Committee asked if the Clerk could further clarify this recommendation, the current Quorum specification and procedures of the Assembly at the next Charter Review meeting.

5)         County Administrator/Assistant County Administrator, Residency Requirement – Delegates Striebel made a motion to delete residency requirement as stated in Charter Section 3-10 (a) and add it to Personnel along with the amendment to add the requirement of residency be left to the discretion of the Regional Commissioners.  Speaker Bergstrom seconded the motion.  The motion passed with Mr. Milne voting no and all other members voting in favor.

Charter Section 3-10 (a). Removal of the residency requirement for the County Administrator.

Delegates Martin and Striebel agreed that this requirement should be removed from the Charter.  This should be a part of the Personnel procedures.  Currently the County Administrator does not reside on Cape Cod.

A suggestion was made that this could be amended when included in Personnel to state that the residency requirement be up to the discretion of the Regional Commissioners.

6)         The Assistant County Administrator is to be designated in the temporary absence of the County Administrator – recommendation voted; however, different from the 2005 recommendation

Charter Section 3-14 (a).  The Charter states that the administrator shall by letter, file with the Commissioners the designation of a qualified officer, department head or employee to exercise the power and perform his duties when the administrator is temporarily absent.

The committee had different views that were discussed.

The County Administrator should be kept apprised of what is going on in the County and his assistant should automatically know the same.  This does not need to be clarified.

The County Administrator works at the pleasure of the Commissioners.  The temporary replacement for the administrator should be appointed by the Regional Commissioners who originally made the appointment of the County Administrator.

Mr. Milne made the motion to remove Charter Section 3-14 (a) in its entirety and add to Personnel that the Board of Regional Commissioners will determine who will be acting as temporary County Administrator.  Mr. Corgan seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

7)         Striking the sentence in Charter Section 3-1 (a) “  The provisions of section one hundred fifty-eight of chapter fifty-four of the General Laws shall apply to such elections.” , removing political party affiliations – Mr. Milne made a motion to recommend striking the sentence in Charter Section 3-1 (a) “The provisions of section one hundred fifty-eight of chapter fifty-four of the General Laws shall apply to such elections.”  Mr. Corgan seconded the motion. Delegate Striebel and Speaker Bergstrom voted no; Delegate Martin abstained.  Chair Gaechter, Greg Milne, Michael Corgan and Leo Cakounes voted yes.   With four members voting yes, the motion passed.

Mr. Milne addressed the Committee about his recommendation to remove the provision in Charter Section 3-1 (a) Composition, Term of Office for the Executive Branch to be exempted out from any influence of their political party.  You should make the Regional Commissioners the same as for the Assembly of Delegates, Charter Section 2-1 (c) and no longer have the 2 party primary for the Regional Commissioners.

The Committee discussed the politics of this recommendation.  The points being made were addressing the elimination of choice for voters designations; this provision is in the Charter for a reason but why; Chapter 34A applies to all Counties except for Barnstable; Mass General Law, Section 158 defines this designation at this level; and if you eliminate the political party how will this be presented to the voters. More then likely the State will not approve this recommendation.

To run for Commissioner this provision makes it more difficult for the people to campaign.  This change may allow for more people to run for this office as they do not have to campaign as extensively, go through a primary, and then the election.

Chair Gaechter heard these concerns along with the concern that the State will reject this recommendation.  If you are trying to rewrite the Charter to show regionalization you need to be strong and make these types of changes.  This is a way to show strong support for regionalization in your recommendations.

The Committee discussed the probability of the State not approving this recommendation and how it will affect the other recommendations.  There may be a severability clause which allows for some recommendations to go forward and some to be disapproved.

Recommendations to the Assembly of Delegates

The Committee asked Mr. Milne to draft the interim recommendations and email the recommendations to the Committee prior to its next meeting.  The Committee members will then have a chance to review the approved recommendations and discuss any changes to the draft.

The next meeting of the Charter Review Committee will be on Wednesday, March 31^st at 4:00 p.m.

The recommendations need to be a clear and clean proposal to the Assembly of Delegates as well as to the State.  The Charter Review Committee needs to formally submit their recommendations to the Assembly of Delegates by April 7^th.

Mr. Milne submitted a letter received from Mr. Curran to the Committee and it is considered a part of these minutes.

The next meeting’s agenda will include the draft recommendations to go to the Assembly of Delegates, items 4 and 5 of this meetings agenda, discussion of the letter Mr. Milne received, and discussion with the Clerk on the voting of the Assembly and what the Charter states on the voting procedures.

With no further business, the Committee adjourned at 5:29 p.m.

At the Committee meeting on March 31, 2010 these minutes were approved, as corrected, with all in favor.

MEMORANDUM                                                                   February 26, 2010

To:                   Charter Review Committee

From:               Diane Thompson, Clerk, Assembly of Delegates

Re:                   Recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee

Listed below are the housekeeping-type recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee for your consideration.

Post-Election Assembly Organization Timeline

In the month of January following an election cycle, the Assembly of Delegates shall meet to organize no later than the 15th of the month.

Assembly Meetings That Fall On Holidays

Consistent with common business practice, meetings shall not occur on legal holidays.  Should County business be deemed as necessitating an interim meeting, a special meeting may be scheduled.

Predetermination Of Lack Of Quorum

Should it be determined that a future meeting will not be represented by a quorum of Delegates, the meeting may be canceled.  Should County business be deemed as necessitating an interim meeting, a special meting may be scheduled.

Clarify Speaker Selection Process

In completing the process for selecting a Speaker and Deputy Speaker, a simple majority of members present will be necessary assuming a quorum is present.

Attached to the minutes is a portion of the Report of the 2005 Charter Review Committee that reflects issues discussed at this meeting.  The committee was given the complete document in the past.

2005 Charter Review Recommendations – Existing Charter

Article 2.  Legislative Branch

1.  Assembly of Delegates (Section 2-2 (a))

Maintain the present structure for the Assembly of Delegates which is comprised of fifteen members, one member representing each of the Cape’s fifteen towns.  Any new formula for the legislative branch of government should retain fifteen members.

The Committee recommends that the concept of allowing for a non-weighted vote should be explored and implemented for ordinances that clearly have no financial implications.

In the month of January following an election cycle, the Assembly of Delegates shall meet to organize no later than the 15th of the month.

In completing the process for selecting a Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and the Clerk, a simple majority of Towns present will represent a quorum.

Consistent with common business practice, meetings shall not occur on legal holidays. Should County business be deemed as necessitating an interim meeting, a special meeting may be scheduled.

Article 3.  Executive Branch

1.  County Commissioners; (Section 3-1 (a))

The Committee recommends that the County maintain three County Commissioners.  The concept of having the three commissioners representing the three distinct regions of the Cape should be explored.

2.  County Administrator/Assistant County Administrator, Residency

Requirement; (Section 3-10 and Section 3-14)

The Committee recommends the removal of the residential requirement for County Administrator; Section 3-10 (a).

The Committee recommends that the County separate and maintain dual offices of the County Treasurer and County Administrator which shall not be combined by one person holding the two positions.  The Committee found that having two separate offices lent itself to the original stipulation in the Charter as well as affords for maximum safeguards of fiduciary responsibilities (this was also recommended in the 2000 review).

The Committee recommends that the Assistant County Administrator is to be designated in the temporary absence of the County Administrator; Section 3-14 (a).

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 24^th and March 1^st 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 21^st 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 3^rd.  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 10^th 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

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.

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

February 24, 2010

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

Absent: Ed Larkin

Others present:  County Commissioner William Doherty; Nancy Curley, League of Women Voters; Paul Niedzwiecki; Diane C Thompson, Clerk of the Assembly; and Jennie Morey, Assistant to Assembly Clerk.

Chair Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the minutes of January 13^th and January 27^th.  The Committee approved the minutes, as written, with all voting in favor.

Chair Gaechter began the meeting by informing the Committee on details of his meeting with the Cape Cod Selectmen’s and Councilors Association.   At the meeting he heard concerns about

the makeup of the Charter Review Committee with 5 elected County officials and only 4 members from the public.  The people speaking thought the committee should be disbanded and re-organized.  They thought the committee should be made up of all townspeople, all appointed by the Selectmen and Councilors.  The County officials would only serve as liaisons.  They thought that there wasn’t enough time for the committee to get the input it needed and they would likely vote against any recommended changes because of that.  They thought that the Charter Review Committee needed to travel to different towns so that there would be regional input and with only 5 weeks left there wasn’t enough time for that to happen. 

Some members of the Association felt that the Assembly of Delegates should be appointed by Selectmen in each town and not be elected.  They said there is a lack of communication between the Assembly and the Selectmen.  The Association also felt that the County should strengthen the role of the County Administrator.

Delegate Striebel pointed out the Selectmen’s lack participation with the Assembly and when they are asked to join in on discussions and assist with making decisions there is hardly any attention paid.  She mentioned her involvement with the town of Yarmouth.

Greg Milne said the members of the Cape Cod Commission are appointed by the towns.  If a person is appointed are they then beholden to the appointing authority?

Delegate Bergstrom stated that the Assembly of Delegates are elected and do not answer to the Selectmen.  The Selectmen are considered the government for the town and there is a need to recognize that County Government is not the same form of government as the towns.

Chair Gaechter mentioned that the lack of communication was only the result of an opinion. It is apparent the constituents do not know there is an Assembly of Delegates or who their representative for their town is.  That is what the Selectmen are pointing out and the unknowing public is where there is a lack of communication.

The strongest point made by the Association is that they do not agree with the make-up of the committee having a strong membership of County officials.  The other strong point is whether or not the Charter Review Committee is doing their job given the time that has been allowed for the Charter review.

Commissioner Lyons stated that there were not a lot of Selectmen at that meeting in favor of the Assembly of Delegates.  This may stem from constituents not knowing the Assembly exists, what their job is, and who their representative is.  The Selectmen said that even if you wanted to do away with the Assembly of Delegates or make changes to them this should be done through the Selectmen.

The Selectmen were concerned with the process in which the Charter Review Committee was appointed.  The make-up of the Committee should have been without County officials deciding their own fate.

Chair Gaechter was asked how many people were actually vocal at the Selectmen & Councilors meeting.

Chair Gaechter answered three people.

Mr. Corgan suggested that since the Selectmen clearly do not like the Charter Review Committee the solution may be to disband the committee.  A motion was made to do so but there was no second.  Therefore, the motion did not go forward.

Mr. Corgan stated that the same people suggesting changes should be made should attend the committees meetings.  The members of the Association have never been to any of the Charter Review Committee meetings since the beginning.  The problem he thought with the Selectmen was the appointing authority.  That is where the power comes from and this group of Selectmen do not like the fact that they do not have any authority to tell the County what to do.  The members of the Association have every right to state their opinion.  The Selectmen should have more interaction with the County.

Chair Gaechter mentioned that even though a small number of members of the Association spoke to their concerns there were a lot of heads in the audience acknowledging their statements.

Commissioner Doherty spoke about when the County had the referendum in 2000, 75% of the people on Cape Cod voted to support County government and the Home Rule Charter. You have to stand by what the people have said.

Mr. Niedzwiecki said the structure of the Assembly is confusing and he asked if it is needed.  Who do the Delegates represent; the towns, the percent of people in each town or even individually?

Mr. Niedzwiecki stated that the bigger point made by the Association was that the Committee was not given enough time to do their review of the Charter.  The Committee needs to have public hearings, go out to the people, and solicit public input.  There were no members of the Cape Cod Commission on the 21^st Century Task Force.  The Commission holds public hearings throughout the Cape that takes a lot of time.  You need to produce the document and then go out to sell.

Delegate Cakounes noted that the Speaker sent out letters to Selectmen, the Councilors, and Town Administrators.  All meetings are posted, given to each town, and follow the Open Meeting Laws.  The Speaker has done due diligence in getting the information out to officials and the public.

Delegate Striebel added that all these Committee meetings are posted and if the Selectmen wanted to come there are 75 seats in the Assembly Chambers.  The Selectmen have had quite a bit of opportunity to participate.

Delegate Cakounes does not want to see the Committee disbanded and this covers the make-up of the Committee.  If what the Committee decides to recommend ruffles the Selectmen then it is good for them and it will get them excited about County government.   He said he has a lot of participation with his Board of Selectmen.

Chair Gaechter suggested that the Committee send a letter of thanks to the Association.

Commissioner Lyons suggested that the Committee take the time they have left and write a workable process.  The Assembly of Delegates do not want their power taken away in Committee recommendations but if the Committee defines a process, chooses the make-up of the Committee, has a public hearing on the Committee’s recommendations, and then gives their final report to the Assembly it may be a plus for the ongoing Charter Review.

Mr. Milne is a member of the Executive Committee for the Association.  The Association has difficulty with the structure and the Charter reform has to be ratified.  The Selectmen find frustration with what the Committee may recommend and they are convinced that the Assembly of Delegates will do whatever to protect the Assembly’s desire not to see a direct recommendation going to voters.  This Charter violates the Home Rule and you cannot have this insider government decide its own fate.  The Association also has a problem with the weighted vote and the number of members of the County Commissioners.

Speaker Bergstrom suggested amending the Charter to address some of the concerns about the committee makeup.  Even if the Committee recommends a change of the Committee you still need to be working under the existing Charter.

Commissioner Lyons again stated that these issues should be brought to the public before the Committee brings recommendations to the Assembly of Delegates.  The public could be shown recommendations of changes, then the Committee could re-establish the new Charter and the make-up of the new Charter Committee. This could then go to the voters.

The Committee has the month of March to come up with changes to the process of the Charter review.  There may be some public input at the Assembly of Delegates public hearing.

Speaker Bergstrom stated that in all this talk no one has moved to change the process.  The Committee has certain items in front of them and needs to make decisions.

If the Committee really wanted to go to the public the Committee could contact the media, go to the public, and go to different towns at a later time in the evening.

Delegate Cakounes stated that there is enough people that know what is going on.  The Committee is doing enough of due diligence.

Delegate Martin pointed out that there are other ways to get public input.  She has looked at what other Counties have done to excite the public.  There are very creative ways that others have used.  The committee talked about using the County’s web page and making it interactive, but that hasn’t happened for a variety of reasons.

Commissioner Lyons stated that on regionalization there is a place for regional government.  This is a chance for the committee to do restructuring.  Cape towns are faced with may large issues and need County Government now more than ever.

Chair Gaechter had a preference to expand the Committees time not only to just resolve one issue and go to the Assembly but also to go to the Assembly to extend the time in order to resolve more issues.

Mr. Milne said to make fundamental changes to the Charter you will need to go to the legislature.  To make major changes it will need to be voted.

Delegate Cakounes understands that to bring forward any recommendations to change the Charter you will be looking at the 2012 election.  Any major changes cannot be done at this time.

Ms. Thompson explained that there are ways to expand upon the Charter process and committee makeup without changing the Charter.  She explained what was done by the 2005 Charter Review Committee when it expanded upon the budget process.  This was done by ordinance.    The committee could write basic changes to expand on how the review of the Charter is done by ordinance as well.

Chair Gaechter would like to go to the Assembly with ways the Committee is going to move forward and to point out the lack of time this Committee has had.  The Committee should also tell the Assembly what the process will be and how this Committee is going to do that.

Speaker Bergstrom noted that the if the Committee was formed in January 2010 and you have to go to vote, you only have 4 months which is structurally impossible.  The Committee is behind the curve and won’t get done what they originally wanted to.  The Committee should prepare a resolution, be re-appointed in 2010 with a new timeframe, and complete a preliminary report.  Then they could go out to the public for the next election in 2012.

Commissioner Lyons agreed that this would give the Committee a chance to get out to the public and receive recommendations to add to the report to the Assembly of Delegates.  It is apparent that no one on the Committee has their own agenda.  This is also true throughout the County.

Speaker Bergstrom made a Motion to petition the Assembly of Delegates to reappoint the current members of the Charter Committee in 2010 to be done by May 2011 as long as it is consistent with the Charter.  This would extend the timeframe of 150 days back from the election of 2012.

Mr. Corgan seconded the Motion.

Commissioner Lyons suggested disbanding the Committee and re-appointing the Committee having the timeframe until April of 2012.

The original motion was withdrawn by Speaker Bergstrom and a new motion stated that the committee would submit a Resolution to the Assembly of Delegates requesting that it extend the timeframe of the Charter Review Committee as currently constituted to December 31, 2011.  This allows the Assembly of Delegates time to review their recommendations and proceed, if necessary, to have legislative changes.

Ms. Thompson will draft the resolution to the Assembly of Delegates and forward the resolution to Speaker Bergstrom and Chair Gaechter for approval.  The proposed resolution will be submitted at the Assembly of Delegates regular meeting on March 3^rd.  The vote on the resolution will tentatively on March 17^th.  This resolution will be a part of the Charter Committee’s report of recommendations.

Mr. Corgan asked that the section regarding Personnel in the Charter be removed.  He will be sending this recommendation to Diane for her input and assistance in doing so.

Mr. Milne stated that the Committee needs to decide whether or not to tackle the suggestion to remove the Assembly of Delegates from the Charter Review.  The first phase should be to clean up the document and that is why he presented the Committee with information regarding Michael Curran Attorney and Counselor at Law from him.  The information is considered a part of these minutes.

Delegate Martin said that the Committee should separate concerns and extraneous issues so the Committee can move forward on the major issues.

Ms. Thompson asked the committee to look at the difficulty of amending the Home Rule Charter that would remove the Assembly of Delegates from the approval process for changes.  She said to the best of her knowledge all changes would have to be done through the Home Rule Charter and that includes the Assembly. If legislation is filed and there is disagreement it is unlikely that it would be favorably dealt with in the Legislature.  She said that has been her experience and she referred to the conflict with the Sheriff and past legislation.

Delegate Striebel asked what is broken with the current structure that cannot be fixed.

Ms. Thompson also asked that the committee look at changes recommended in 2005 by the previous Charter Review Committee.  In addition to substantive comments and recommendations there were some housekeeping issues that could be dealt with, perhaps, by this committee in its first recommendation to the Assembly.  She said she would pull out the changes from the report and give them to the Committee.

Ms. Thompson asked that the Committee if it would change its meeting days from Wednesday to Mondays or some other day due to the upcoming review of the County Budget by the Assembly of Delegates.  The Assembly Standing Committees will be scheduling their budget reviews on Wednesdays beginning March 17^th through April.

Chair Gaechter set the next meeting of the Charter Review Committee on Monday, March 1^st at 4:00 p.m.

The agenda is going to have the Business Roundtable and the League of Women Voters address the Committee.  It will also include discussion of the County Counsel responses and recommendations to the Assembly.  The Resolution will be reviewed at that time as well.

The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

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

Barnstable County Charter Review Committee

January 27, 2010

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

Absent: Ronald Bergstrom and Ed Larkin

Others present:  County Commissioner William Doherty; Diane C Thompson, Clerk of the Assembly; and Jennie Morey, Assistant to Assembly Clerk.

Chair Gaechter opened the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the agenda, it was moved and seconded with all in favor.

Chair Gaechter asked for the approval of the minutes of January 13^th but even though there was a quorum to meet, two members of the Committee had to abstain because of their absence at that meeting.  Therefore, the approval of the minutes was postponed to the next meeting on February 10^th.

The Committee discussed the second letter drafted for County Counsel regarding the questions shown on the Major Issues Chart prepared by the committee.  Ms. Thompson highlighted areas in the letter that needed further explanation.  The draft letter to County Counsel is attached and considered a part of the minutes.

Chair Gaechter said on item number 2 he would like it explained further on eminent domain

Chair Gaechter said where it is highlighted with a question about what is meant to explore taxation, he believes the committee would like to know what are the powers and limitations of the County on taxation noted in Section 1-6 (d) of the Charter.

Ms. Thompson said she could provide the committee with information about the County’s taxation powers and limitations. She said she would prepare the outline then ask the County Administrator to confirm her findings.

Commissioner Doherty pointed out that the MGL define the County’s ability to tax.

Ms. Thompson agreed but added that Barnstable County by special legislation has also been given added revenue streams through taxation.

The Committee moved on to item number 3 in the letter questioning the language in Eligibility and asked that County Counsel look at Section 2-6.  This question needs to be clarified.

Chair Gaechter stated that the question is related to members of the County not being able to be employees of the County.  Is it illegal for a County employee to be a member of the Assembly of Delegates and should that language be included in Section 2-1 (b)?

Mr. Milne stated that it is not a matter of being legal or illegal.  If the Charter was silent it would become legal but the Charter has it as law.  In a Town when you review the Charter you have to send your recommendations for any changes to the Attorney General.

Chair Gaechter suggested the question to County Counsel be “Can you change the Charter to allow for County employees to serve as a member of the Assembly of Delegates?  Is it legal for existing Assembly members to be employed by towns?

Mr. Milne asked could the Charter prohibit full time or part time town employees from serving as a member of the Assembly of Delegates.  He thought this should also be a part of the question to County Counsel.

Charlotte Striebel said she was a Selectman in the town of Yarmouth for many years and served on the Assembly.

Mr. Milne said the question could be about non-special town employees.  That would exclude Selectmen.

Commissioner Doherty said he is a part time employee for the Town of Harwich.  He also noted the employment of Delegate Lynch in the Town of Barnstable.

Delegate Martin stated that there is a small population base in Barnstable County that is mostly made up of retirees. She asked how restrictive do you want the base of available people to be.  The reality of where we live is that if you make certain restrictions you end up with limitations that will produce a small base to choose members.

Delegate Cakounes asked what is the question in item 5.  The language for elections for Delegates is different than that for Regional Commissioners.

Mr. Milne stated that the Charter says there is an exemption for the legislative branch that is forced on the executive branch in certain elections.  Is the County bound to this or can we take the State rules out for the County Commissioners.

Clarification is needed on item number 7 regarding the Advisory Board of County Expenditures (ABCE) with the duties assumed by the Assembly of Delegates.  The change was a result of the lack of participation of ABCE members but was the change legal?

More information was needed on item number 10 which asks if Section 2-11 is legal.  The committee noted that the process with regards to excessive absence could exclude the Delegate who has been absent.  Is it due process when there is the possibility that the Delegate could be excluded?

Delegate Striebel stated that when there was a problem in the past the Assembly of Delegates did try to get in touch with the Delegate as to why he/she is not attending.  On the rare occasion that this has occurred the problem of lack of attendance has been resolved and it included the Delegate in question.

Ms. Thompson agreed and said the Assembly office called the Delegate, sent information via regular mail and email, and when there still was no response, began sending certified mail.  Numerous attempts were made to contact the person.

Delegate Cakounes questioned the legality of being able to remove an elective official from office.  The elected official (Delegate) is representing their town and if they miss meetings of the Assembly, is it the duty of the town to decide whether they are replaced or not?  Why do the Selectmen have that decision?  He suggested that there must be a process to follow to make this legal.

Ms. Thompson asked if the question should be “Is it legal to remove an elected official and if so is there a process allowed which meets the law?”

Mr. Milne asked if reference to Commissioner Doherty in item number 11 could be removed as the questions are coming from the committee as a whole.  There is no specific reference as to who asked the previous questions.  The Committee agreed to remove the Commissioner’s name from the question.

It was agreed that Ms. Thompson would make the changes to the letter and email them to Chair Gaechter for approval.  The revised letter would then be sent to County Counsel.

Delegate Cakounes made a motion to give Chair Gaechter authority to approve the letter when revised.  Delegate Martin seconded the motion, and all voted in favor.

Chair Gaechter asked the committee to look at the timeline the Committee it received on October 28^th, which gives a breakdown of when the Committee needs to report back to the Assembly of Delegates with their recommendations.  It explains the procedures and dates for both the Committee and the Assembly of Delegates.

Ms. Thompson explained the timeline and gave more details.  She pointed out the limited amount of time presently available for the Committee to complete their task.  The Assembly of Delegates needs to review the Charter Committee recommendations, approve or disapprove them, and has to take action more than 150 days prior to the election if any recommendations are to go to a vote.

Ms. Thompson said that looking at the requirement that the Assembly must vote on any changes at least 150 days prior to the election means that it should receive recommendations in early April.   Every recommendation by the Charter Review Committee has to be voted on by the Assembly of Delegates. The Assembly will receive the recommendations in the form of a proposed ordinance.  Recommendations are either voted up or down or may be amended.  The Assembly has to vote on each issue.  The Assembly can add issues.

Commissioner Lyons stated that there should be a public process.  She asked if there is a public process before the Assembly of Delegates votes.

Ms. Thompson stated that there will be a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.  This is the normal procedure for all ordinances proposed.

Commissioner Lyons suggested that if the Committee has changes it should try to use the month of April to schedule meetings with the public to ask for their input.  The committee could then make more changes according to public input and present the recommendations to the Assembly.

Delegate Cakounces mentioned that Speaker Bergstrom wants to make motions on the major changes because the Committee does need move along with their recommendations.  He said it is going to be tough to do what Commissioner Lyons has suggested.  The Committee has limited time.

Mr. Milne pointed out that if you follow the schedule there is no time to include meetings with the public as suggested by Commissioner Lyons.  The Committee has only had discussions on issues with no formal votes.

Chair Gaechter stated that the second part of the agenda was for more focus of the Committee.  The Committee started to rewrite the Charter. This cannot be done in 8 weeks.  He suggested they look at certain major issues.

Mr. Corgan made a motion to recommend that the Personnel rules be removed from the Charter and that the rule be moved into an existing administrative document.  This section needs to go into County Administration.

Mr. Milne seconded the motion, and all voted in favor.

Mr. Corgan stated that he would take on the task of making changes to remove ambiguity from the Charter.  The wording of the Charter needs to be corrected in many areas.

Chair Gaechter suggested that the Committee could recommend that after the Assembly of Delegates approves or disapproves the recommendations, the Committee could continue to make ambiguity changes to the Charter.

Mr. Milne said the Committee could hire a consultant to work on cleaning up the document.  The Town of Barnstable has done this with their Charter.

Delegate Striebel made a motion that the Committee recommend, as recommended by the previous Charter Review Committee, the creation of a Standing Committee on Charter Review so that there is an ongoing review of the Charter. The previous Charter Review’s list of recommendations is attached and considered a part of the minutes.

Mr. Corgan seconded the motion.

Members of the Committee asked if this would include Ordinance review.  Will there still be a 5 year Charter Review Committee and could the review start at an earlier time?

The answer was that ordinances are included in the Charter Review, and there would still be a 5 year review that could start earlier.

The committee discussed the explanation that accompanied the previous Charter Review Committee’s recommendation and noted that it would make its own recommendation at a later date.

Chair Gaechter said he was concerned about the make-up of the Charter Review Committee.  He thought the majority of members should be people from the towns and not members of the Assembly of Delegates and County Commissioners.

Committee members discussed the membership of the newly recommended committee and thought that the people working with the Charter and Ordinances regularly should be on this committee with some local representation.  The Committee agreed to take up Chair Gaechter’s concern about the membership of the Charter Review Committee when it got to that section.

After discussion took place on the motion, all voted in favor.

Delegate Striebel made a motion to adopt the third recommendation made by the previous Charter Review Committee to maintain the current structure of County Government, that being 15 Assembly Delegates representing their respective towns with a weighted vote and three County Commissioners.

The motion was seconded by Delegate Martin.

Commissioner Lyons said if the County is going to maintain its structure the County should look at its purpose.  How does the structure best serve its purpose in partnership with the towns?  Major issues that need to be addressed regionally, such as wastewater, zoning and other regional issues, are coming from the towns and more and more towns are looking to the County for help. The County should be able to help.  The County has to look down the road and envision the structure of government so that it can help towns.

Delegate Striebel questioned Commissioner Lyons concern about her concern about the structure.  She referred the Committee to previous findings and recommendations by previous Charter Review Committees.  This has been studied extensively.  She said that the Charter provides for the County helping towns and it currently does so in numerous ways.

Delegate Cakounes asked that the original motion to leave the County with 15 Delegates, 3 County Commissioners, and the weighted vote be discussed separately.  He suggested the motions be as follows:  Should the Committee recommend the deletion of the Assembly of Delegates, should the Committee get rid of the weighted vote, and should the Committee increase the County Commissioners to 5?

Delegate Striebel amended her motion so that it is to retain the Assembly of Delegates with 15 representatives as stated based on the U. S. Census.

Delegate Martin seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lyons stated that there is no problem with the Assembly of Delegates created to have representation. Presently taxation is not being truly represented by Towns.  People are taxed and represented by population through Congress but taxes do not even out by population.

Commissioner Lyons stated that the County shouldn’t be defining a regional government by town boundaries.

Chair Gaechter compared representation in Congress and the State.  The County Commissioners could be changed to get representation there; get representation by the population.  If the Assembly of Delegates is based on 1 town 1 non-weighted vote you would be looking for a Board of Regional Commissioners that would represent the population.

Mr. Milne asked if in doing so is it illegal.

Ms. Thompson noted you would be taking away the 1-man 1-vote representation from the legislature and giving it to the executive branch.

The Committee discussed electing Commissioners by region, using as an example the districts of our State Representatives.

Mr. Milne thought it would be an easier means to have the 1-man 1-vote by having 5 County Commissioners. Then you could get rid of the weighted vote of the Assembly.  There would be 1 County Commissioner for each district and you could achieve the goal of 1 man 1 vote to be synonymous with the districts.

Chair Gaechter asked if the suggestion is to have 15 representatives for each town for the Assembly of Delegates, no weighted vote, and 7 County Commissioners with 5 representatives by district and 2 at large.

Commissioner Lyons stated that if you have 7 County Commissioners then could you get rid of the Assembly of Delegates.  The Board of Selectmen’s votes are balanced because of their form of representation.

She noted that previous Charter Reviews looked at regional Commissioners and/or regional Delegates.  At that time people from the lower Cape expressed concerns about not having one person representing their smaller towns.

Mr. Milne stated that by establishing the Assembly and Commissioners by district this is a way to get rid of the weighted vote. The Committee was told about other areas in Massachusetts that have different forms of representation.

Chair Gaechter stated that the Committee should ask County Counsel if the County could organize the regional government with 15 Assembly Delegates, no weighted vote, and 5 County Commissioners elected by district, using the State Representatives’ districts on the Cape as an example.  The committee noted that Representative Madden represents only a portion of Falmouth and then the Islands.

Ms. Thompson said she will draft the question for County Counsel. She stated that she will put this question before County Counsel in a separate letter asking that he give his response on this high priority.

Delegate Striebel withdrew her motion until the Committee receives a response from County Counsel.  Delegate Martin also withdrew their second to the motion.

Chair Gaechter said he would like to continue defining the comparative responsibilities of the executive and legislative bodies.  Define responsibilities of these 2 bodies by checks and balances and be clear on their powers.  The previous proposal may be less fair under this newly suggested structure.

Chair Gaechter noted that the next meeting of the Charter Review Committee is on February 10^th. The Cape Cod Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce will be present.

The Committee will complete their agenda depending upon receipt of responses from County Counsel.

Mr. Milne told the Committee mentioned their upcoming meeting with the Cape Cod Selectmen’s Association on February 12^th. The Association asked that the Committee have a bullet presentation or outline of what process and discussions have taken place by the Committee.    It was also pointed out that there will be a quorum at this meeting.  The Association meeting will need to be posted.

Delegate Cakounes stated that the only outline would be based on the approved Minutes.  There have been no votes there have only been roundtable discussions.  He suggested that the Committee only turn over motions voted on today and the approved minutes.

Chair Gaechter suggested using the Major Issues Chart and only give the basic issues.  He will create an outline and attach the Major Issues Chart.

It was noted that Mr. Corgan will not be at the next meeting as well as Mr. Larkin.

The Committee voted with all in favor to have Chair Gaechter put together the outline for the Cape Cod Selectmen’s Association.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

At the Committee meeting on February 24, 2010 these minutes were approved with all in favor.

CAPE COD REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Charter Review Committee

First District Courthouse – Route 6A

Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630

(508) 375-6761/6762  Fax:  (508) 362-6530   E-Mail:  aofd@barnstablecounty.org

Fred Gaechter, Chair (Truro) Edward Larkin (Mashpee)

Charlotte Striebel, Vice Chair (Yarmouth) Sheila Lyons, County Commissioner (Wellfleet)

Ronald Bergstrom, Speaker (Chatham) Teresa Martin (Eastham)

Leo Cakounes (Harwich) J. Gregory Milne (Barnstable)

Michael Corgan (Falmouth)

DRAFT January 28, 2010

Robert Troy, Esquire

Troy Wall Associates

90 Route 6A

Bourne, MA 02563

Re:       Barnstable County Charter Review

Dear Attorney Troy:

The Cape Cod Regional Government’s Charter Review Committee has been going through the Charter and compiling questions.  In addition to the inquiries contained in the letter dated January 19, 2010, the committee requests your legal opinion on the following questions.

1. Section 1-5, paragraph 2.  How should this paragraph be interpreted? The committee questioned if the requirement in the paragraph is legal.
2. Section 1-6 (d).  What are the legal rights and procedures of the County to exercise eminent domain?
3. 3. Section 2-1 (b).  The committee questioned the language in Eligibility and asked that you review the language in Section 2-6.  Is it illegal for a County employee to be a member of the Assembly of Delegates? If so, it is suggested that it should be stated in Section 2-1 (b). Section 2-6 prohibits a Delegate from becoming an employee for one year after a person is no longer a Delegate.  Could the committee recommend that the Charter be changed to allow that employees could serve as Delegates on the Assembly?  Could the Charter prohibit a non special town employee from serving as a Delegate on the Assembly?
4. Section 2-1 (c).  Could the committee recommend staggered terms and term limits for the Delegates?
5. 5. Section 2-1 (c).  The language for elections for Delegates is different than that for Regional Commissioners in that it does not reference partisan/primary elections, Section 158 of Chapter 54, MGL (see section 3-1 (a)).  Is there a reason why it is included in the County Commissioners’ elections but not the Assembly of Delegates?  Could the language referring to partisan/primary elections be removed from the Regional Commissioners section of the Charter?
6. Section 2-3.  The committee questioned the Assembly’s ability to establish its own salary and asks what might happen with staggered terms?  How would the salary then be established so that a Delegate would not be voting on its own salary increase?
7. Section 2-4.  The Assembly of Delegates, as a result of 2000 Charter changes, began serving as the Advisory Board on County Expenditures (ABCE).  Is there a conflict asking the Assembly of Delegates to serve in this capacity?
8. Section 2-5 (iv).  This states that “every” matter which comes before the Assembly of Delegates shall be put to a vote.  The committee asks for language clarification focusing on the word every. The committee discussed the executive session option for the Assembly of Delegates, and asked if this should be noted in the Charter.
9. 9. Section 2-11.  The process in this section could potentially exclude the Delegate in question.  The committee asks if this is due process.  Also, is it legal to remove an elected official from office?  If there is a process allowed, does the established process meet the requirements of the law?

10.  Under Article 5, Fiscal Procedures, it was suggested that the Regional Commissioners be given the ability to have a line item veto on the budget.  Could the Charter be changed to accommodate this suggestion?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Fred Gaechter, Chairman

cc:  Mark Zielinski, County Administrator

Timeline (to be confirmed by County Counsel):

April 7, 2010(?) -  Proposed ordinance submitted to Assembly in 2010 to meet the following deadlines.  (This date to be finally determined by the Speaker.)

June 2, 2010                            -  Assembly of Delegates must vote on Charter Changes

(this is the last meeting of the Assembly where the “more than 150 days” requirement can be met – see #2 below.)

Prior to August 4, 2010            -  Notify State and provide ballot question

(First Wednesday in August)

November 2, 2010                   –   State Election

Charter Changes that affect Timeline:

Section 9 – 1. Charter Changes

1)         `Charter changes require a 2/3rds vote of its full membership prior to submitting amendments to the voters.

2)         The vote of the Assembly of Delegates must take place more than 150 days prior to the state election.

3)         Changes to government structure require an act of the legislature prior to being submitted to the voters.

“Any amendment which is related to the composition, mode of election or term of office of the legislative body or the mode of election or appointment or term of office of the chief executive or administrative officer shall be proposed to the voters only after the enactment of the state legislature of a special law approving of a petition filed by the assembly of delegates with the approval of the Board of regional commissioners.”

4)         Notification to state and ballot question provided no later than the 1^st Wednesday in August.

Whenever, pursuant to the provisions of this section relating to charter amendments, the Assembly of Delegates intends that question is to appear on the state election ballot, the county clerk shall at the earliest possible date, but not later than the first Wednesday in August in an even numbered year, notify the office of the secretary of the commonwealth of the pendency of such question, or questions, and the form in which such question or questions are to appear on such ballots.

Barnstable County Charter Governance Subcommittee

Charter Recommendations

1)  The first recommendation is that the Assembly and Commissioners create a Standing Committee on County Governance.  It is suggested that the committee be compromised of 3 members of the Assembly, 1 Commissioner, and 2 outside representatives.  The 3 Assembly members and 2 outside representatives will be assigned by the Speaker of the Assembly.  The Commissioners will assign 1 to the Committee.

The Committee’s ongoing charge will be to review enabling Acts to include, but not be limited to, Barnstable County Government and the Cape Cod Commission.  The goal will be to assure that both entities are structured in a manner that best enables County Government functional excellence in providing for the services and needs of the region as intended by the originators or as subsequently modified.  Further, the committee will seek to simplify, clarify, and minimize, if not eliminate, any confusion over the intent or interpretation of reviewed documents.

The review of the County Government charter will encourage and result in an ongoing presentation of proposals to the Assembly and Commissioners in “bite size” pieces in a 5-year cycle.  Each cycle will culminate in the consolidation and review of the approved parts as meeting the 5-year review mandate.

The review of the Cape Cod Commission Act will assure that the structure of the Commission  and its relationship to Barnstable County Government is properly structured and aligned to meet the challenges of the region that fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

2)  The second recommendation is for legal counsel to draft text that clarifies the budget process in a manner more consistent with the processing of other ordinances.  Essentially, this proposal is meant to address a situation where a budget ordinance is passed by the Assembly and vetoed by the Commissioners, resulting in an unsuccessful override attempt by the Assembly.  Under this recommendation, that ordinance would fail.  In this case, a Conference Committee will be established (whose composition is yet to be determined) to review and form consensus on a new budget ordinance.  The Governance Subcommittee felt that this process was the fairest way to resolve differences and would also replace the need for a “line item veto”, which was also duly considered and discussed.

3)  The third recommendation is to maintain the current structure of County Government, that being 15 Assembly Delegates representing their respective towns with a weighted vote and three County Commissioners.