Whalen - the most interesting items I think is the proposal for some positions to be appointed rather than elective. Treasurer/Collector, Constables, Board of Assessors, Planning Board, Board of Health. I think there are qualified folks who can serve in these positions who are not willing to run a campaign. we should not disallow their participation just because they don't want to run for election.
Zollo -
Cheli - recognizing the Citizens Committee members: Michael Walker Jones, Larry Benedetto, Maureen Roy, (other names to be added later)
There was a majority report and a minority report, the difference was on the Town Clerk position (which should remain an elected position). Both Jim Dacey and Debbie Pellegri contributed mightily to the work of the Citizens Committee.
Jim has recommended that his own position become appointed. The technical requirements have increased such that to manage a million dollar budget it should be not an elected position.
You can leave the positions to the luxury of an elected position.
Pfeffer - you had 23 meetings, but during those meetings you did not vote on the Board of Health, Assessors, etc.
Cheli - The whole process of getting 100 signatures, of standing holding a sign, in the cold and rain. It is not saying the people don't get a voice. They do elect the Council. They do elect the School Committee. You get a chance to review all the appointments. Yes, we did talk about it but none of us felt strongly on making a recommendations.
Pfeffer - I think the Board of Health, Assessors, Constable, and the Town Clerk should remain as elected positions.
McGann - I think we should keep the Treasurer/Collector and Town Council as elected. If you appoint someone, you take away the voice of the people.
Cheli - I understand what you are saying. The voice of the people comes through your body. It is a 90 million dollar business, It is not Franklin in 1975.
Vallee - The key is ratification by the Council. We are elected by the people and we have the control.
Powderly - I am reluctant to take away the power from the people. I think the growth of the Town and the stakes have been raised such that these should be appointed. This is consistent with municipalities of cities of our size.
Zollo - There is a difference between policy makers and administrators. Policy and long term strategic view should be left to the people. Ironically because we have such quality Treasurer and Town Clerk that it is what we need to keep by moving them to appointed.
Kelly - I agree with the Citizens Committee that both the Treasurer and Town Clerk be appointed, I think those folks should also live here, if they do not already. We did that on the School Committee
Norman - I am going to speak in favor of the elected positions of the Assessors. I think it should be kept separate. I don't understand why they should be appointed.
Whalen - this is not a comment on anyone that holds the positions currently. I think of it as a long term document, as the Town continues to grow, we need to have the absolute best people doing those positions. Not all of them who are qualified would want to go through an election. I would rather a larger pool of people to choose from.
Zollo - I think it is simple that we don't have enough candidates currently to fulfill the roles. They have to be convinced to get enough today.
McGann - Kelly hit the issue on the head, why do we have such quality currently in the position? It is because they are local have been living here and are interested in being here. Mr Vallee what are the qualifications of a Councilor?
Vallee - There are none
Whalen - While a Councilor doesn't have to have qualifications, the Treasurer etc.
Dacey - One of the requirements of the City of Worcester is to move to the city. They have a Treasure position open for 2 years and have finally removed the requirement. I would not recommend making that a requirement.
Jones - This is very interesting. My point on this topic.
Mason I don't think is has anything to do with the voters, it has to do with the candidates. We have a Board of Assessor candidate this year, did not pull papers, ran unopposed, and fortunately he is qualified.
Nutting - in normal cities, the voters elect a council, school committee and mayor. They don't elect the other positions. We are an exception that we are the only city with an elected Town Clerk. I would like to get the best possible people for the positions.
Mason - I don't think we are elitist.
Zollo - I think I was elected to to the best for the voters. I don't think that just anyone can walk into the Town Clerk position and run an election like has been done on Jan 19th, or the past Town elections. This is not best, this is someone who is technically competent and qualified to run the position. All the other cities in the Commonwealth have already made this decision.
McGann - I wonder if this has been announced would there be more folks here to help us?
Mason - it was announced. It was in the Milford Daily News and the Boston Globe.
Pfeffer - comment about clerk being local and handling last minute requests.
Ray Fioravanti - I came here pretty sure that the elected officials were the way to go. I have heard all the arguments and I will stay with the elected positions. What makes the Town Council more qualified to make that decision? If you appoint someone, you do have a broader range of candidates. I agree. That could be resolved in another way. What better way to judge a persons reputation than by putting it out to vote? I would like to get to pick from a large pool. The question is who gets to pick, the Council or the voters. I am afraid there is a pattern of taking away from the voters something they already have.
Refers to a Whalen quote from May 2008, about the genetic disposition of voters against an override
Cheli - This council is a legislative body, the council is not elitist, it is a living document. we took representation away from the people. I think it is what is needed to be done. You got to a longer term view. If you have an issue with personalities.
(break)
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Live reporting - Franklin, MA: Charter Review
Present: Kelly, Jones, Vallee, Whalen, Mason, Pfeffer, McGann, Zollo, Powderly
Absent: none
Meeting Purpose review changes of Council subcommittee, review proposals from Citizens Committee, and hopefully come to a consensus
Whalen - decision on election date and terms, all at once or staggered terms
no compelling reason to overcome the logistic challenges to adopt a staggered term
Zollo - I agree with that
Cheli - yes, the citizens committee agreed as well to keep it as is. Worry about losing the institutional knowledge is not valid as it did only occur once (1997) in the last 12 years. We studied it a lot. We have a Town Administrator and Staff to maintain the continuity we felt we needed. The staggered terms could be done, it would be more expensive with more elections but we did not recommend it.
Ken Norman - addressing the issue of staggering terms. The whole purpose of this exercise was to have staggered terms. To my mind it is quite simple. The top vote getters get the longest term. This is how the problem was solved in this charter. You need to commit yourself that you either need to have staggered terms or you don't. It seems pretty simple.
Mason - neither committee was charged with going to staggered terms. The charge was to exam what changes needed to be made and propose those. The issue of the staggered terms was commitment to four or more years. The Council preferred to review their position every two years.
Whalen - I think we said we could do it. We did not come up with a compelling benefit to make the change.
Norman - the history of the town shows that it did occur. The history is being ignored.
Nutting - you can find arguments on both sides. The citizens seem to want the option of deciding who they want every two years.
Vallee - There is a learning curve to become a council. I think it is important to have staggered terms.
Cheli - Ken participated in a lot of our meetings. I had Debbie Pellegri pull the data on the elections. 1997 was a different year. I look it as an anomaly, an outlier. I look it as a unique period of time. I came on the committee with the idea that we needed to fix this. I looked at the data and decided otherwise. It is a sentiment of the citizens that they want the options to "throw the bums out" every two years. The Charter Review in 1995 was a major effort. They reduced the council from 17 to 9.
JIm Dacey - chairman of the 1995 Charter Review committee. "Pray to God it never happens, but we'll that God when it does." It wasn't a fresh group in 1997, some finance and other committee folks did change positions and run in 1997. That was an anomaly.
Zollo - I appreciate every ones input. I went into the process thinking of the staggered term. By decreasing the volume, increasing the quality of the debate, there would be a better council. The data as referenced convinced me otherwise. I think the four year term would be a deterrent rather than having folks willing to serve two year terms. We need more people who are willing to get involved.
Absent: none
Meeting Purpose review changes of Council subcommittee, review proposals from Citizens Committee, and hopefully come to a consensus
Whalen - decision on election date and terms, all at once or staggered terms
no compelling reason to overcome the logistic challenges to adopt a staggered term
Zollo - I agree with that
Cheli - yes, the citizens committee agreed as well to keep it as is. Worry about losing the institutional knowledge is not valid as it did only occur once (1997) in the last 12 years. We studied it a lot. We have a Town Administrator and Staff to maintain the continuity we felt we needed. The staggered terms could be done, it would be more expensive with more elections but we did not recommend it.
Ken Norman - addressing the issue of staggering terms. The whole purpose of this exercise was to have staggered terms. To my mind it is quite simple. The top vote getters get the longest term. This is how the problem was solved in this charter. You need to commit yourself that you either need to have staggered terms or you don't. It seems pretty simple.
Mason - neither committee was charged with going to staggered terms. The charge was to exam what changes needed to be made and propose those. The issue of the staggered terms was commitment to four or more years. The Council preferred to review their position every two years.
Whalen - I think we said we could do it. We did not come up with a compelling benefit to make the change.
Norman - the history of the town shows that it did occur. The history is being ignored.
Nutting - you can find arguments on both sides. The citizens seem to want the option of deciding who they want every two years.
Vallee - There is a learning curve to become a council. I think it is important to have staggered terms.
Cheli - Ken participated in a lot of our meetings. I had Debbie Pellegri pull the data on the elections. 1997 was a different year. I look it as an anomaly, an outlier. I look it as a unique period of time. I came on the committee with the idea that we needed to fix this. I looked at the data and decided otherwise. It is a sentiment of the citizens that they want the options to "throw the bums out" every two years. The Charter Review in 1995 was a major effort. They reduced the council from 17 to 9.
JIm Dacey - chairman of the 1995 Charter Review committee. "Pray to God it never happens, but we'll that God when it does." It wasn't a fresh group in 1997, some finance and other committee folks did change positions and run in 1997. That was an anomaly.
Zollo - I appreciate every ones input. I went into the process thinking of the staggered term. By decreasing the volume, increasing the quality of the debate, there would be a better council. The data as referenced convinced me otherwise. I think the four year term would be a deterrent rather than having folks willing to serve two year terms. We need more people who are willing to get involved.
Franklin, MA: Charter Revisions - available for review
You can prepare for the special meeting Wednesday evening by going to the Town website to download or at least read the proposed Charter Revisions here (PDF file).
The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Bldg beginning at 7:00 PM.
The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Bldg beginning at 7:00 PM.
Franklin, MA: Trash Automation Introduction and Q&A
The introduction document and the Question and Answers document for the new curbside Trash pickup process starting July 1, 2010 are now available on the Town website
The Introduction document
The Q&A document
or here
The Introduction document
The Q&A document
The Introduction document
The Q&A document
or here
The Introduction document
The Q&A document
Franklin, MA: School Committee 03/09/10
The collected posts for the Franklin, MA School Committee meeting on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 can be found here:
- Live reporting - Information matters, closing
- Live reporting - action items
- Live reporting - Bully Task Force
- Live reporting - policies
- Live reporting - Budget Q & A
- Live reporting - FY 2011 Budget
- Live reporting - Franklin, MA: School Committee
In the News: school budget
The proposed budget, $52.2 million, does not see any cuts in programs and could potentially bring back the late bus at no additional cost.
"We're anticipating reviewing the current routes and ridership," Goodman said. "We're expecting to bring back the late bus without an additional increase."
The late bus was not offered for the 2009-2010 school year to help eliminate the budget gap.
"When the late bus was eliminated it created an inequity in the district," Superintendent Maureen Sabolinski said.
Franklin schools predict $2M in increased costs
Hold the date for the Charles River Watershed Cleanup!
Are you looking to make a real difference in your community? If so, join a group or form your own to clean up trash throughout the Charles River Upper Watershed. You will be helping us improve the appearance and health of the waterways in our region.
If you live in the Upper Watershed please consider volunteering a few hours of your time to help us protect this unique and valuable natural resource. The large majority of our the cleanup sites are land-based, but we have a few on-water sites for experienced paddlers who can supply their own canoe or kayak.
Did you know? The Charles River stretches for more than 80 miles from Hopkinton to Boston. It originates and flows for nearly 37 miles here in the Upper Watershed. In our region alone the Charles is fed by 45+ miles of waterways including seven major tributary rivers, brooks, and streams.
WHEN: Saturday, April 24, 2010
TIME: 9:00 AM - 12:00 Noon
WHERE: Charles River Upper Watershed - Ashland, Bellingham, Dover, Franklin, Holliston, Hopedale, Hopkinton, Medfield, Medway, Mendon, Milford, Millis, Norfolk, Sherborn, Wrentham.
The volunteer check-in site will be located in front of Whole Foods Market in Bellingham, MA. Stop by to get directions to your assigned site, collect your cleanup supplies and receive a free t-shirt. We encourage you to sign up in advance by using the contact information below.
CONTACT: David Dobrzynski
Upper Watershed Volunteer Coordinator
EMAIL: CRWAvolunteer@gmail.com
You can view the flyer for this event here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)