Town of Natick - Selectmen's Minutes

Captain White noted that since 1991, originally as a show of support during Desert Storm, each year the firefighters put up the flags in the downtown for the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The 100 flags were purchased by residents and businesses and replaced every year. 100% of the donations were used for the replacement of the flags, hardware and poles. In light of what has happened (terrorist attack), the firefighters would like to have the flags remain up.

Ms. Challis explained that it was actually the William Harris Company and Dino Quaglietta was the manager. They were seeking a permit to hold a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza on October 13 & 14, 2001. Police Chief Dennis Mannix had spoken with Mr. Quaglietta and he would be on the premises during the sale.

Mr. Hughes prefaced the discussion by noting that there had been some question about Elliot Goodman’s need for special municipal employee status and the procedure for doing it. It was indicated that if Mr. Goodman were granted the special municipal employee status, all members of the Library Trustees would have to be granted the status.

Mr. Goodman responded that he thought all the trustees were designated as such, but didn’t know. He noted that since the inception of the special municipal employee law, he has received such status. The status terminates on June 30th every year and he wasn’t aware until recently that the same procedure wasn’t being following.

Mr. Goodman continued that he was a 15-year member of the Library Board of Trustees and has worked on various town committees and worked on a committee on zoning regulations and on the writing of the adult business by-law and he didn’t want to give those activities up. He also works as a consultant for other lawyers rather infrequently – maybe 50 hours a year, and he didn’t want to give that up. He was a 50-year member of the Bar and he didn’t want to run afoul of the by-law.

Mr. Ball pointed out that the law states that were the Board to give Mr. Goodman special municipal employee status, the same would have to be given for other members of the trustees and various committees. He (Mr. Ball) felt there was a reluctance on the Board to grant blanket special municipal employee status to people who have not applied and whose relationship was less clear than Mr. Goodman’s. Mr. Goodman was applying under the aegis of all the activities he does for the Town.

Mr. Goodman responded that he didn’t know if everyone had to apply. If the Board wants to correct the errors of the past 15 years, it can do so or go along as it has in the past. It was his understanding that other communities designate certain boards. What bothered him was that if he were called upon to assist a committee pro-bono, to do so he would have to seek the Board’s approval on each occasion. Mr. Goodman advised that he spoke to the State Attorney and was told that a lot of communities do what Natick has been doing up to now which was to respond to individual requests.

Mr. McKinley stated that he thought the primary purpose of special municipal employee status had less to do with the depth of servitude, but was a mechanism for an individual to avoid ethical conflict of interest at the same time he was doing business with the Town in some capacity. However, Mr. Goodman is saying that he is not doing that, and he (Mr. McKinley) was getting more and more confused. Maybe an opinion was needed from Town Counsel to clarify this.

Mr. Goodman noted that he was not concerned that there was going to be a complaint that he functioned in an unethical manner, but he believed that if a Town employee, whether a man who picks up trash or a member of the School Committee, has to have special clearance if he was going to do anything at all and he (Mr. Goodman) puts in maybe 50 years.

Mr. Hughes noted that this was the same group that did the same type of activity at the Elks about four months ago. The reason they were before the Board tonight at the last minute was that the Board had originally scheduled a meeting for October 9th and they (East Coast Piano) thought they would bring it to the Board then. They just found out that the meeting had been moved to October 15th.

With all due respect to the financial gain to the Elks, Mr. McKinley questioned if this was doing a disservice to our own community by allowing an out-of-town vendor to come in for a relatively small amount of money and set up shop. Was that fair to the rest of the businesses in Town. Boston Organ and Piano was a large retail establishment with all costs of maintaining a business here and to ask them to compete with an organization that every 3-4 months rents a hall to sell pianos, concerned him (Mr. McKinley).

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball stated that he was struck by the argument Mr. McKinley puts forth, but it also occurred to him that there was no complaint from Boston Organ or anyone else. He suggested allowing this sale to happen, but maybe invite comment and make it clear that if there is a problem, they should let the Board know. In the absence of no complaint, he didn’t see a reason to deny this.

Mr. McKinley countered that he didn’t disagree with Mr. Ball, but the Board confronts a lot of issues where there wasn’t feedback, but good judgment was needed. Over a period of time, he thought there would be no option but to erode our businesses. He suggested granting this request with the understanding that it was not to become a frequent occurrence – maybe once a year.

Director of Public Health, Roger Wade, explained that the Board of Health had applied for and had been approved by the state for the second round of funding for Title V betterment loans. In 1997 Natick was approved for $275,000 which was loaned to homeowners to upgrade their septic systems or if available to connect to the sewer system for

repayment to the Town as a betterment up to 20 years. That program was completed last year. $145,000 had been loaned to 18 homeowners. The remainder was committed through betterment agreements, but the program ended and the Town had to apply for another. It was approved and Town Meeting in April authorized the borrowing. Since that time there has been a lot of red tape between the Town and state, and the Board’s approval was the last hurdle.

Mr. Stern inquired as to what percentage the $200,000 represented of the total need. Mr. Wade responded that he thought more than that might be needed, but the applications came in a bunch in the beginning and then just gradually. No one had to be turned away. 17 upgrades of systems were completed that might not have taken place otherwise.

Mr. Stern then questioned if the Town should be making money on loans when the Town was borrowing interest free from the state and then charging residents 5%. Mr. Wade noted that the guidelines of the agreement with the state allows the Town to charge 5% or 2-l/2%. It was up to the Board of Health. The thought was it may take 20 years to repay and the 5% would cover the billing. He did not see the Town making money on this.

Finance Director Robert Palmer reported that in June 2001, Chris Rogers of Powers & Sullivan turned over the final draft of the management study and a draft of the policies and procedures for the Treasurer/Collector’s operation. At that time Mr. Rogers questioned whether that would conclude their services, and Mr. Palmer said he answered that there were very minor things – primarily incorporating the software component with their (Powers & Sullivan’s) policies and procedures. However, in the meantime a drastic change was made and software was changed. In discussion with the auditors, it was decided that the best choice would be to have Powers & Sullivan deliver their policy & procedures, use Point Software and integrate it into the policy & procedures.

Mr. Stern noted that in a report from Powers & Sullivan, there were some 35 recommendations. He asked Mr. Palmer if these recommendations had been implemented and if not, which ones. Mr. Palmer responded that the reconcilliations and major points were completed at this point in time. Several minor recommendations had not been done, but he believed all the major recommendations had been complied with and implemented.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Palmer felt this was an effort not worth undertaking unless there was some reason to chase down some account. Mr. Palmer responded that that was correct, adding that for the most part records that have been purged were a zero balance. To go back and recreate them, would mean spending thousands.

Mr. Hughes said he assumed that Tofias, Fleishman & Shapiro, the Town’s auditors would address whether these material weaknesses have been dealt with in the new audit, which has commenced. Mr. Palmer concurred. Mr. Hughes suggested that once the Town gets the management letter that Mr. Palmer and Mr. Stern review it and the Powers & Sullivan recommendations to see if they have been resolved.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern to accept the street layout for Bear Hill Road, Great Rock Circle, Fairbanks Place, Woronco Drive, Algonquin Drive. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes had left the table and did not vote.

Mr. Ball brought up the revamping of Charles Street and requested an update from Mr. Coviello. Mr. Coviello advised that currently work was being done on approximately 14 different streets. They were in various stages of completion and all should be complete in the next month. All sidewalks and prep work was being done before putting on the final pavement.

Mr. Glaser explained that this was the site of Nick’s Ice Cream which Mr. Stournaras’ father had run for more than 20 years. At the end of 1998, the Stournaras’ secured the property from the Wallace family and developed plans. Mr. Glaser referred to a rendering depicting the proposed restaurant and landscaping. He noted that the development plans went before the Planning Board and the ZBA and all special

Mr. Glaser introduced Sharon Stournaras as the manager of Nicholas’s and noted that she had started working in the restaurant business at the age of 14. She has been involved in the food service and financial parts as well as training. When this opportunity (to acquire the restaurant) came up, the Stournaras’ took whatever financial availability they had and purchased the property and were moving forward with the reconstruction. The restaurant menu will be a luncheon menu similar to now except it will be upgraded plus there will be a full service dinner menu. The Stournaras’ will comply with recycling.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he sat as a member of the Planning Board when Nicholas’s came before the Planning Board and he wanted to make sure there was no conflict in his doing anything tonight. Mr. Conley didn’t believe there was a conflict, and Mr. Glaser noted that his clients didn’t see a conflict.

With regard to Nicholas’s application for an all alcoholic common victualer’s license, Mr. Glaser told the Board that the restaurant had 115 seats with a service station between the main kitchen and the first booth. The proposed manager, Sharon Stournaras, has completed the TIPS program and has a substantial background in this area. During college Ms. Stournaras was involved in the restaurant business which served alcohol. In her (Ms. Stournaras) mind TIPS certification will be required for each employee. She (Ms. Stournaras) understands this is a privilege to have a liquor license granted and takes it very seriously.

Mr. Glaser advised that it was his understanding that Nick’s Ice Cream will be upgraded to a café type environment, and he stressed that there will be no alcohol served in that area in any manner. Nick’s will be mainly moving away from food service to ice cream, coffee. In his view there will be no conflict between the two entities, and his clients were prepared to be strict in the separation of the two entities.

Donald Friswell of 59 East Central Street stated that he would not like to see the Saturday car shows continued. To him this was not an appropriate activity for a restaurant of this type and he would like to see a statement from the applicant that they would not apply for an entertainment license to keep the Saturday nights going.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, to grant Nicholas’s Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Nicholas’s an all alcoholic common victualer’s license for premises at 85 East Central Street. An amendment was offered by Mr. Stern and accepted to condition the issuance of the license upon receipt of letter from the applicant verifying there would be no more Nick’s car nights. Unanimously voted.

Elks manager Paul Carew told the Board that he has been managing private clubs in Natick for 12 years. He had done some research on different towns’ policies and introduced Mike Marcantonio who teaches TIPS workshop. Mr. Carew also noted that there was a probationary period when someone was hired, and no one liked to waste money training someone who would be gone within a week. He felt the establishments can train those people themselves and know within 30 days whether that employee would be kept and within 90 days, the person will be certified.

Mr. Marcantonio advised that he teaches the TIPS program and has worked with many towns. 15 towns have a 30-90 day period before employees have to be trained. As to what programs were approved, Mr. Marcantonio advised that the insurance industry recognize two: Bar Code and TIPS. AIM was an awareness seminar.

Mr. Marcantonio suggested that the Board put together a task force made up of members of the liquor stores, on premises licensees, Police Department and the Board to investigate what other towns were doing. Quincy doesn’t mandate server training, but has two city officials delegated to go into the establishments every night. Cambridge does the same thing.

If the concern was about servers coming on without training and being supervised, Mr. Stern asked if it was a problem to have a server come with that certification and once the probationary period ends the employee is reimbursed. Mr. Marcantonio advised that he had been told that if an individual was hired with a condition of employment, the establishment was required to pay for it.

someone in the probationary period. While he understood that employers hate to sink $50 in someone who doesn’t cut it, the kids’ lives were worth much more than that. With respect to which organizations were and were not approved by LLGI, Mr. Ball said he would certainly like to know what those were.

Mr. McKinley concurred with Mr. Marcantonio, adding that this idea just came up 2-3 months ago. It was a good idea but he (Mr. McKinley) didn’t know much about it. He felt the Board should take the time to assemble qualified people even if it means this year’s licenses get renewed and the policy gets in place afterward. He wanted the Board to do this well as opposed to fast.

Legal Seafood manager Howard Steinmetz noted that when he was a general manager in Cambridge, he was a member of CLAB and it brought everybody together in fighting underage drinking. They came up with a lot of innovative things and information sharing. Mr. Steinmetz advised that Legal Seafoods makes everyone go through TIPS every three years and in the training program they go over alcohol service.

Ercole Ubaldino from Kentucky Spirits told the Board that you can’t just hire someone these days and say you can’t start until another month to get certified. They will go elsewhere. He questioned why it was always assumed that alcohol was served to teens directly. The bigger problem was people over 21 buying it and giving it to underage kids. Cops in Shop worked well. It wasn’t done this year, and he missed it.

Crowne Plaza representative David Shamoian stated that he believed in TIPS training and did it in his hotels. However, he would have a problem doing it prior to employment or before an individual gets on the floor. Their (Crowne Plaza) policy was that it gets done within 30 days and during that time they go over a lot of things. He would be in favor of the policy as long as it was 30 days after employment.

Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Shagory was talking about putting the flag in the same position as it was prior to it being taken down and was it part of the leased premises of the Montessori School. Mr. Shagory advised that he was talking about the same location as before and he had been told that it was property leased by the Montessori School, but he hadn’t seen any documentation. He added that the Town owns the land and the Board of Selectmen would have the yea or nay over it.

As this property was part of the Eliot School lease, Mr. McKinley questioned if there was any language in the lease for the Town to grant such a request. Mr. Stern was of the opinion that the lessee would be entitled to the right of quiet enjoyment and the Town could not arbitrarily erect a flagpole on the property without the lessee’s permission. To him (Mr. Stern) this was a golden opportunity for the lessee to work with the neighborhood, but he didn’t see any way to do it without cooperation between the Town, lessee and the residents.

When asked by Mr. Ball if he had spoken to the Montessori School, Mr. Shagory advised that he had not. He added that he wanted to get the sense of the Board and if in agreement, he would then approach Montessori. Mr. Hughes, however, felt that Mr. Shagory should talk to the Montessori School as opposed to the Board of Selectmen telling them (Montessori) that this (flag) was going to be done.

Mr. McKinley responded that he thought if someone holds a lease to the land, they should have the right to agree. Plus there was the precedent issue of a private citizen installing a structure on Town property. For him (Mr. McKinley) there were a bunch of liability issues. If a flag was going to be put there, he would prefer that it be done by the DPW.

Mr. Stern noted that there were any number of precedents where private citizens have installed improvements on Town property. He thought that issue could be dealt with, and the real question was the need for cooperation from the lessee. The lessee has to be willing to do this. The Board doesn’t have the right to force it on them.

Not wishing to be unpatriotic, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had a concern about how many flagpoles were going up. Natick already stepped forward and displayed flags on Town property. He was concerned to what extent the Town should go – will people want flagpoles on East School and Ben-Hem. People can easily put flags on their own property.

Mr. Ball called attention to Articles 17 & 18 which both dealt with the selection process for a Town Administrator – one was proposed by the Board of Selectmen and one by the Charter & By-Law Review Committee. At this point Mr. Ball thought the only difference between the two was in the selection committee. Mr. Ball noted that he had previously

spoke in favor of the Board of Selectmen’s article which sought to have the selection committee entirely appointed by the Board of Selectmen; however, he has rethought that and finds himself in the camp of the Charter Committee. Realizing that the Board of Selectmen has the final decision (on the appointment of a town administrator), Mr. Ball felt other boards and departments have a different perspective and he thought the Town would benefit if that committee were chosen not solely by the Board of Selectmen. If the Board could agree on the merits of other boards appointing the selection committee, he thought there would be an agreement and it could go to Town Meeting with unity.

Mr. Hughes disagreed and pointed out that the committee as currently constituted and as it would remain under Article 18 would limit the Board of Selectmen to one member of that committee to choose candidates for the person the Board is responsible for hiring. He felt (if the Selectmen were choosing the committee) that the Board would pick as diverse a committee as possible to get the best candidates. In some ways he saw that committee (under Article 18) as limited and will have the same people as who always serve. Under Article 17 he thought there would be a broader range of people who may not be involved in Town government. Mr. Hughes also pointed out that several other boards, after they choose the candidates don’t have a lot of interaction with

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley for discussion, to support Article 17. An amendment was offered and accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion to have five members of the selection committee appointed by the Board of Selectmen and one each by the School Committee, Planning Board, Finance Committee, and Moderator. After discussion the motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley and Mr. Ball were opposed.

In discussion of the motions, Mr. McKinley stated that he was disappointed that some compromise couldn’t have come about and that he was in alignment with Mr. Hughes. Mr. McKinley pointed out that the School Committee this evening was considering a replacement for superintendent and they (School Committee) did this on their own with no participation from anyone else and yet under this by-law the School Committee would be represented. The whole process probably made sense when it was set up. The Planning Board is elected and they don’t work for the Town Administrator, but there is a link with the Community Development office. Ultimately the selection of the Town Administrator and the supervision of the Town Administrator is the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen and he would have more faith in a process where individuals interested could apply to be on the screening committee and be interviewed and selected as opposed to being locked in to one of these and one of these. There was nothing in Mr. Hughes’ proposal to prohibit picking someone from the School Committee. It just doesn’t require it.

Mr. Ball agreed that neither the School Committee or Planning Board has the kind of interaction with the Town Administrator as the Selectmen, but you can’t deny that the style of the town administrator has no impact on their operation. It has an enormous impact; therefore, they have a different perspective on what makes a good town administrator and a good candidate. The Selectmen make the final choice from the pool, but it seemed a healthy thing to allow individuals whose activities are impacted by the town administrator to have at least the opportunity to say this is the kind of person we would like. For the Board to have all the marbles was to do the Town and the Board a disservice. To him the Board lost nothing by supporting Article 18 and in fact the Board would gain.

In looking at the article, Mr. Ciccariello noted that it said that the person chosen (by each of the boards/committees) may be or need not be members (of that board/committee). If the Planning Board doesn’t want to be involved, they can appoint someone else. He questioned why the Selectmen shouldn’t have control over putting the selection committee

Mr. Ball responded that he thought this was a Board of Selectmen with high moral standards, but there have been boards in the past and probably in the future that may not in fact be made of the same sterling stuff and he could conceive of a board with a candidate and stack the selection committee. There have been prior boards that acted in that fashion. With putting all the authority in the hands of the Board of Selectmen, there could be that possibility.

Mr. McKinley offered a compromise of removing an appointment by the Personnel Board since it was an advisory board to the Board of Selectmen and instead put in three at large individuals appointed by the Board of Selectmen. The rest of the committee would be made up of a representative of the Planning Board, School Committee, 2 from the Finance Committee and 2 individuals from the Town Moderator.

Mr. Stern noted that the Board had initiated the process of selecting a new Fire Chief and since the Town was spending $3/4 million on the truck, he thought there should be input from the new chief. Given the magnitude of the purchase, Mr. Stern asked if there was support to hire a consultant to look at the condition of the truck.

Mr. Foss noted that the Finance Committee has been talking replacement of vehicles on a program basis. One piece of apparatus talked about for many years was the aerial truck. He thought it was an anomaly at the time that the Town got it (current ladder truck) and the price for which we got it. The likelihood of that happening again was slight to none. He felt the time was ripe to get a vehicle that was going to take 12-16 months to get. He pointed out that the Finance Committee’s

Mr. Ball stated that he shared Mr. Stern’s concerns and would like to have an independent assessment of the condition of the truck. Chief Fredette was going to retire in January and there will be a new chief. Unless there was some reason for us to have to replace the truck, he thought the new chief should be able to weigh in heavily. Unless the truck was not in service, he preferred waiting and doing what Mr. Stern suggested.

Having just heard that the Schools will support the $500,000 with the expectation that they will come back in April looking for more, Mr. McKinley inquired as to how much more. Mr. Foss responded that they would be looking for $1.6 million, the remainder of the $2.1 million. Mr. McKinley then questioned if they want to expend all design fees prior to an approved override, and Mr. Foss’ response was, ‘yes.’

Mr. Hughes noted that the Schools don’t believe they will be in a position of requesting an override until November 2002. Mr. McKinley responded that maybe the Schools should put off spending the $500,000 until April. If they don’t believe they can do it in April, why spend the $500,000 now and put everything on the shelf until November. He didn’t see getting approval for $1.6 million in April. That defeats the purpose of Mr. Ciccariello’s idea to do what they have to do to understand the questions and then give it to the voters before spending over $2 million of the Town’s money.

Mr. Foss explained that the Finance Committee thought why would we want to appropriate all the money at one time without information to know we were going in the right direction. To get to the design phase, we would know more for the spring appropriation and more time to digest the report and for the capital subcommittee to understand the scope.

wouldn’t anticipate anything until it was brought to them. He added that the understanding was that if the design were favorable, they (Finance Committee) would consider it. In follow-up Mr. McKinley questioned if the FinCom would approve the $1.6 million prior to getting approval of the voters. Mr. Foss’ reply was that the Finance Committee would only look to the question before them.

support the renovation. When you get through the schematic, you have support details and estimates so the residents will know the cost with inflation and contingencies added. If this was the track the Schools wanted to go (seeking the $1.6 million before the override), he would not support this article at this time.

Mr. Hughes noted that he saw it as two different issues. Without the $500,000 the Schools were operating in the dark. As to the need and hoping the schematic design will have enough information so people will know what the renovation was going to be, Mr. Hughes said he understood the renovation was anywhere from $42-50 million depending on

Mr. Ciccariello felt that if $500,000 was spent so they can come back to Town Meeting in April, they were talking of delaying this project at least another 6-8 months. A lot of things can change in 6-8 months. There can be changes in building codes and that $l/2 million could be wasted. He had no problem with spending the $l/2 million to find out the final costs and where it was headed, but the problem was that they (Schools) were going to wait another eight months before bringing it to the voters and in that time the schematic may be of no use.

Mr. McKinley stated that it was his understanding that the Schools were going to support the $500,000 to develop essential design detail that would put them in a position to adequately inform everyone what they were going to do and why it was necessary and when they had that information, they were going to the voters. Mr. McKinley said he was upset that the Schools have apparently turned that around and said OK to the $500,000 and they will be back in the spring for the rest and not going out for the vote in the spring. His conversations with the School Committee were in favor of going out to the voters to see if they could get approval. If the override failed, they would have six months to correct and come back in November and they wouldn’t lose a whole year and be on the original schedule to start construction in 2003. It was upsetting to him that the Schools weren’t going to place it on the ballot this spring. To him that was crucial to supporting this article.

When asked to explain the FinCom’s recommendation, Mr. Foss responded that even though the committee agreed that it should be funded, they couldn’t agree on how much. There were two motions that failed because neither received eight votes. There was support for $160,000 and $250,000 but the FinCom didn’t come to a decision to make a recommendation.

In making the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that it was his recollection that there was in fact a lost revenue stream due to faulty meters and equipment and recovering that and gains with new technology offset the cost of this program. Mr. Palmer said this would pay for itself and his (Mr. McKinley’s) support was based on that presentation that it

greatest opportunity to develop information and inform the people over the greatest period of time. After the middle school was defeated it took a full year. The last time around the Town Administrator proposed going forward with design fees of $1.1 million to fully develop the picture and he thought the School Committee had taken from that the need to best educate the voters. What the high school renovations would be was not a done deal. There were a lot of unanswered questions and he believed the School Committee wanted to be able to answer them.

Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that although Town Meeting appropriated $1.3 million for the middle school, the building committee stopped the project and only spent $400,000 and would not proceed to final construction documents until it was known that the voters wanted to do this. He thought this was the same position. Spending $l/2 million,

Mr. McKinley noted that in his most recent conversation with Mr. Connolly and Peg Broekel, it was made clear to him (Mr. McKinley) that they were focusing on A.1.b (plan) with no swimming pool and no active consideration of any of the other schemes. They were spending $500,000 on qualifying that concept and if $500,000 wasn’t enough to qualify that concept and bring it to the voters, he didn’t know what was. He didn’t disagree that the $500,000 had to be spent but he didn’t buy that April wasn’t the right time to go to the voters.

If the Schools weren’t going to the voters until November, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why not wait until April to appropriate the $500,000. They have from April to October to do their drawings and this way the design will sit there for six months before bringing it to the voters. It was delaying it (renovations) by doing that. The Schools were delaying the process which could hurt them rather than help them.

Mr. Stern noted that he was given the pleasure of coordinating and reviewing the responses of the performance appraisal survey for Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen. 21 requests were sent and there were 13 responses. The responses were very good. Apparently Mr. Cohen was well thought of by his peers and exhibited a lot of strength under fire

Mr. McKinley noted that the Board had originally opted to do this in connection with the fact that Mr. Cohen has been working for the Board in Mr. Conley’s absence and it was unfair to burden Mr. Conley with the responsibility of doing this. When Mr. McKinley asked how the Board could manifest this process in the form of a merit increase and how to translate this into his (Mr. Cohen’s) performance plan and objective for the past year, Mr. Hughes explained that it was not within the Board’s purview to grant any increase.

Mr. Hughes explained that the Board was in receipt of a certified list from Civil Service with two names – Deputy Chief Gene Sabourin and Deputy Chief James Brien. Both candidates had signed that they would accept an appointment if offered and now it was up to the Board to decide how to go through the process of selecting one. Mr. Hughes noted that he had asked Mr. Cohen to check with Labor Counsel Michael Lehane on procedures and was told that there were three options: l) the Board could interview the two candidates in public; 2) A subcommittee could be designated to conduct interviews and bring a recommendation to the Board; 3) The Board could have an assessment

Mr. McKinley didn’t think an assessment center should be hired, particularly with two candidates and both were internal. He also felt that interviewing the deputies in a public setting and trying to choose based solely on that experience does a severe disservice to the men and to the community. The Board was about to appoint someone who will be chief of a major department and probably will be so for 10 years or more. He saw value in having both candidates come before the Board and

make a presentation and answer questions as he thought it would be good to see them both in a public setting, but the subcommittee was an interesting idea. Mr. McKinley noted that he had spent some time talking to Chief Fredette, the two candidates and some of the other men. His (Mr. McKinley’s) personal preference was spending some time getting to know the candidates and what people think. Mr. McKinley said he was willing to serve on the subcommittee. It was his intention to get to know the candidates and he would recommend that each of the Board spend some time with the candidates, the chief and some of the officers in the department.

Mr. Ball stated that he was distressed that this memo didn’t go out some time in the past two months and he was concerned that the response to this memo will not be perceived as something that has to be done or else. He would like to instruct the Town Administrator to instruct the recipients of this memo that their use of Town vehicles will be suspended by Friday morning unless they respond to the Town Administrator’s request. He felt the Board had been patient in waiting for this information and now that the request was made he wanted it to be forthcoming and the surest way to see that it was gotten was to suspend use of the vehicles if it was not.

In response to Mr. Ball’s motion, Mr. Conley stated that he didn’t like to make suspension automatic as then it becomes not a request but a threat. When asked what he would propose in its place, Mr. Conley replied that he would issue a statement from him on how important a response was and he would take appropriate action.

Mr. Ciccariello agreed with Mr. Ball and noted that the Board has been working on this since August 6th and it keeps getting delayed. These things keep getting pushed off and pushed off and people say why can’t they (Selectmen) get it resolved. In fact the Board hasn’t been getting the information and it needs to be conveyed to individuals that they must comply by Friday or they may loose the vehicles.

Mr. Ball commented that he had had several individuals assure him that they have seen Town vehicles with family members in them in shopping malls and in one instance on the Cape. Mr. Ball moved that the Board establish a policy that employees who take home vehicles have an odometer log reading for when they leave and when they return and that each log entry be dated and if an information it be so noted. There was no other way to track if vehicles were being used for

Mr. McKinley stated that he was having a difficult time grasping the significance of what Mr. Ball was trying to do. There was a vehicle policy and the Board went through a lot of work to review it and agreed it was an appropriate policy. He questioned if Mr. Ball thought people were abusing the policy, and Mr. Ball’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. McKinley responded that it was more appropriate to point that out to the Town Administrator and ask him to take appropriate discipline. Mr. Ball countered that it was the responsibility of the Board to annually approve the use of each vehicle by employees assigned to it, and he couldn’t do that until he knew it was warranted.

Mr. McKinley questioned if the request for mileage was micro-managing, but Mr. Ball didn’t think it was. Mr. McKinley then noted that he didn’t want to review mileage records. If someone saw someone on the Cape, a call should be made to the Town Administrator and let him deal with it. He preferred to see specific allegations turned over to the Town Administrator and let him deal with it.

Mr. Hughes reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee met last Wednesday and discussed short-term and long-term prospects. The Town did very little for capital expenditures for this Fall Town Meeting. Next fiscal year is the last fiscal year of the current labor contracts and new contracts will be negotiated for Fiscal 2004. Revenues are not expanding and growth is not going up. All the parties agreed that they have to be careful of expansion or addition of any new programs without funding sources. Another meeting is scheduled for November 7th at which time Mr. Palmer will present a three-year projection of revenues and he (Mr. Hughes) will provide it to the Board. State revenues will now be short about $l/4 million in education. Instead of $175 per pupil, it will be $112.

Mr. Stern expressed frustration with the lack of requested information. The Board requested information on a number of items and hasn’t seen anything. For instance in the minutes of August 6th, there was a request for a list of outstanding payables relating to Police details, but it has not been seen.

Mr. Stern recalled that several months ago there was a discussion about sending a letter to the School Department regarding conditions in the high school parking lot. There were hay bales that were crumbling and getting into the stream and the amount of trash on the grounds of the parking lot was disgraceful. Nothing has been done.