Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

Mr. Cugini reminded the Board that last year there were problems with the oversight of not realizing that it had to comply with the homeowner’s association. This year he had talked to the homeowners’ association and it was decided that it would be best to hold it on a Sunday, which would create the least amount of problems. The additional insurance has been sent to Michael Canning, President of the Algonquian Drive Homeowners Association. A special detail police officer has been requested and he (Mr. Cugini) has not heard that there would be a problem getting one. He recalled that last year the hay

Robert Raisch noted that a permit had been granted for a Jiffy Lube operation on Route 9 at Route 27 and as he watched the construction progress, he was concerned with how the traffic will enter and exit. It appeared that the entrance to the unit would be off Route 9. This was a four bay unit and the traffic will be directed out of one little driveway. It was a very congested area. Two of Natick’s buses have been rear ended in that area and he understood from Lieutenant Mabardy that this was one of the highest risk intersections. If they do any abundance of business, it would be very difficult to exit onto Route 9.

Ms. Sand told the Board that in one of her first jobs she was a main street manager and she appreciated coming to a downtown such as Natick. She had been on board with the Chamber of Commerce since January and represented the MetroWest Momentum program that has been in existence for 12 years. As to events sponsored by the Chamber, the year started with Celebrate Momentum honoring 55 businesses that have expanded in the MetroWest region. There was an economic forecast breakfast with over 200 people in attendance, and the panel of speakers from various avenues of business provided their insight on the downturn in the economy and their expectation for a turnaround.

Ms. Sand continued that since January the economic development task force has held monthly meetings and has become a forum to discuss issues affecting the bottom line. Access to key decision makers has resulted in attendance that has doubled. Topics presented include: Natick Labs, telecommunications, the Mass Pike, local impact on the state fiscal crisis, adult basic education, regional economic development from the State’s perspective, and the state of the American Dream in Massachusetts.

back to where it was two years ago. The focus was on K-12 education to help students come back and find jobs here. That was done through a program called ‘Choices’. Choices was open to 8th grade students. Natick has not taken advantage of it and she would love to see Natick as part of it. It talks about the choices the kids are making and how they affect the rest of their lives. The Chamber was starting to focus on adult basic education. One out of three members of the working age population does not have the skills to move forward in this economy. Literacy, computer skills, English as a second language were the basic three they look at. The region has a whopping 4.1% unemployment which was still full employment and there will again be issues where companies were looking for workers.

Ms. Sand continued that the Chamber has worked with a number of individual companies and organizations and has worked with individual developers as they go through infrastructure needs such as water and sewer. They have worked closely with some of the restaurants in Framingham on grease traps. Both she and Mr. Welte have been involved in community visioning. There was a lot to do. They started the Board

In conclusion, Ms. Sand noted that she came from Philadelphia and went through two base closings. It was not pretty. She saw a lot of benefit with the Natick Labs having over 2,000 employees and a $90 million payroll. 5% of the people at the Labs live in Natick and they were high paying jobs. She would hate to see the Labs leave. They were beneficial to the first responders in the communities and she believed they could be a catalyst for other businesses coming to the area.

Ms. Miller advised that the time line was pretty much the same as in July and they were on target. They have continued with the education program and had a successful table at the Natick Days and received a lot of support. They also conducted a recycling panel at the library that went well. There were ongoing budget discussions with the DPW, Finance Committee and Town Administrator because there will be an increased cost for going to weekly curbside recycling. She didn’t have the numbers as of yet, but was working on them.

Ms. Miller further advised that there were problems with the grant. There was information from the State saying they had dipped into the grant money for other purposes. The committee hoped to get at least l/2 the grant money and will be looking at alternative ways of getting the word out to people such as putting things in water bills. The current plan was to keep going with the way they have been going, get the word out, and do the best they can to educate the public.

Mr. Hughes asked about the financial impact, and Mr. Lemnios responded that he was in the process of fine-tuning. He had been given a range of $200,000-300,000 (for going to weekly curbside recycling) and would be meeting with the large companies that offer these services as a pre-RFP meeting. As a follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if that was $200,000-300,000 more than the anticipated cost presented to the Board. Mr. Lemnios didn’t know what cost had been presented to the Board, but he

Mr. Stern then asked what happened if the Town didn’t get any grant money. Where would the Town come up with the money for the bags? Mr. Lemnios responded that he was in the process of identifying a proper fiscal measure that would allow the funding of the purchase of the bags. If the Town did not get a grant to purchase the bags and there was not a fiscal process in place, a source of funding would have to be identified at Town Meeting to purchase the bags.

When asked about the deadline for applying for the grant and getting some response, Ms. Miller responded that the grant had already been applied for and Sanitation Supervisor George Russell felt the Town should hear in December. She added that Mr. Lemnios had been in touch with Senator Magnani to push for getting that money back into the cities and towns for solid waste.

Mr. Glaser stated that Mr. Kapoor had a great deal of experience in Indian restaurants and was the owner of Kebab-N-Kurry on Mass Ave and the Bombay Club in Cambridge. His children were now coming into the business and he would like to expand. Mr. Kapoor has mortgaged his home and the seller was financing a portion. Mr. Kapoor has the experience to make it a wonderful Indian restaurant.

Kapoor had about 21 years of experience with these types of restaurants including the service of alcohol. He started Kebab-N-Kurry in 1981. His people were trained properly in the use of alcohol. Mr. Kapoor was trained and was going for a re-certification under TIPS and Bar Code. There have been no issues connected with his restaurants, and Mr. Glaser believed Curry Leaf would be a welcome addition to Natick.

A member of the public, Robert Raisch, noted that the notice mentioned that there were two exits, but he only knew of one. Mr. Hughes pointed out the exit on the drawing, and Mr. Ball indicated that he was aware of there being a second exit in the restaurant. Mr. Ball did, however, express hope that as part of the renovations, the emergency door would be better marked.

With about 1,600 homes affected, Mr. Hughes asked how likely it was that the underground would be complete by October 7, 2003. Mr. Steel responded that they (RCN) watch the marketplace and hope things will reach bottom and start back up, but cable companies were not doing well. It was extremely unlikely that RCN would be building again in any major way in the spring. RCN will look at specific requests for service and if they can be done, RCN will do them, but RCN may not be able to do the scale of work that would allow them to complete by next year.

Mr. Ball asked Mr. Steel to comment on the likelihood that come October 7, 2003 RCN will not have completed this work and at some point prior to that, RCN will be before the Board seeking an extension. Mr. Steel noted the possibility of him seeking some kind of middle ground on a portion. He noted that he was standing similarly before other Town boards in Burlington, Wakefield and saying the same thing. RCN was trying to look at new ways to raise capital and was selling some assets in New Jersey and will have some money. However, even if they have the money, they couldn’t spend it now. They (RCN) were trying to show they can compete with Verizon and AT&T and show a profit. The cable industry was heavily debt driven and they were not spending anywhere. They (RCN) were looking at where they can spend money and get a return that justified the expenditure.

Mr. Steel assured the Board that it was not a matter of going under or Chapter 11. If RCN can be positive in the business market this year and in the spring they can look to expand, they would do that. RCN understands it has an obligation under the franchise agreement to do it. This has been a tough year and continues to be a tough year. He didn’t know what would happen in the spring. If the Board was asking him now if he would be back in the spring saying RCN can’t spend now and needed more time, he would say that that was likely.

Mr. Ball continued that he understood Mr. Steel’s responsibility to the company and the company’s responsibility to the stockholders, but the Board had a responsibility to the citizens of Natick. The Board entered into the agreement with the understanding that service would be available to all residents by April 2002. If the Board decides to cut RCN slack as opposed to beginning the breach process, he wished to assure Mr. Steel that in all likelihood the Board would be unwilling to extend it any further. He (Mr. Ball) didn’t want to see RCN go under, but the Board had a responsibility to the citizens of the Town. If the Board extended the window to October 10, 2003, that was all the slack that RCN would likely see from this member of the Board and he suspected from other members as well. Mr. Ball said he wanted Mr. Steel to be advised of that and thought it should be kept in mind.

competition. RCN took that step. RCN appreciates the support it has received from the towns. At this point in time they would appreciate the year extension, but if they found in each community they were being forced to spend the money to construct, it would put them in a difficult situation. He appreciated the patience the Board was showing and understood what Mr. Ball was saying. He hoped the marketplace would be much better next year and if not, he would be talking about matters beyond their control in the breech process. He appreciated the fact that people want RCN’s service in Town and it was difficult to tell people they can’t have the service. RCN wanted to provide everybody they can with service, but just now they can’t.

Mr. Stern inquired as to where Natick stood on the priority list for completion, and Mr. Steel responded that Natick was with the other communities in which they had systems still under construction. RCN has systems in Dedham, Somerville. Boston was mostly aerial with very little underground. Natick would stand with Burlington and Needham. When it comes to underground, Natick was with those two communities and there weren’t that many homes. The design was done and it was just a matter of committing the resources.

Mr. Stern then inquired as to where the underground construction stood in comparison with aerial and when RCN gets money, where would it spend it first. Mr. Steel replied that Boston was expensive to construct and they had done all the construction RCN was going to do except for some larger apartment buildings. RCN wasn’t constructing and they were laying off construction people. They had 185 people and were down to 22.

Mr. Ciccariello asked what would happen if the Board decided not to give RCN an extension, and Mr. Steel responded that RCN would continue to provide service. All that would happen would be to get into some legal wrangling. Mr. Steel reminded Mr. Ciccariello that there had been discussions that if RCN completed the I-Net in a timely fashion, they would get some consideration for the extension.

Mark Buckley identified himself as the new store manager in Natick. He noted that he was a lifelong resident of Massachusetts and graduated from UMass in 1982. In 1992 he joined Sam’s Club after having worked for Macy’s. He has been in several locations and most recently in Hudson. Every location he was in sold alcohol and recently he went through alcohol training again with the AIM course.

Mr. Ball noted that ABCC approval was required and that has had a rocky history. He questioned if Mr. Levey, at this moment to the best of his knowledge, expected any such issues to appear. Mr. Levey responded that without a problem with the payment of taxes, the last time it took five weeks to get the changes authorized. There have been massive layoffs at the Department of Revenue. His (Mr. Levey’s) office called the DOR every single day and it took five weeks. Hopefully since they (Westborough Beverage) was just there, there won’t be that problem.

Mr. Lemnios reported that he had met with two employees and talked with several others and was doing a little research based on conversations with those employees. In the Board’s packet was a roundup of area communities. Two communities have accepted the early retirement bill. Statewide of the 351 cities and towns about 15% have accepted and 85% have not or have not acted. The research he was doing will be complete by the next meeting.

Mr. Lemnios continued that using the scenario outlined, $49,000 of savings would be generated the first year, but over time it would cost the Town $1 million including salary savings each year. The Board doesn’t have the authority under the law to limit a certain number in each department, but the Board can designate the number in each class. The Board can set a number for Group 1 and a number for Group 4, but cannot stipulate two from the Fire and two from the Police Departments.

If the Board put a limit on the number of employees from Group 1 and more employees than that filed, Mr. Ball questioned on what basis the decision would be made. Mr. Lemnios explained that the law was clear and it was based on seniority. Mr. Lemnios added that it was a thirty-day application period that can begin no later than November 1st. Any one of the 63 could apply. Those applications were gathered and set by seniority. Once the limit was reached, it was just the folks in the limit. Most of the communities that have accepted the bill have gone with an unlimited number and most have gone with the five years.

Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Lemnios had a rationale behind the communities that have accepted the bill. Mr. Lemnios responded that the two local communities, Ashland and Holliston, both had low numbers. Both were around six. The overriding theme of the communities that have not accepted the early retirement bill has been that for many communities, because they were already relatively thinly staffed, the scenario of not replacing people was not a scenario that would hold over a period of time. The needs change over time. The real question was, was the Town not going to replace for 4-6 years and that was difficult. Most of the departments were not heavily staffed. Of the communities accepting the bill, about 15 were cities which have a larger workforce and a little more flexibility.

Mr. Lemnios continued that the one thing balancing the replacement issue was what would happen next fiscal year vis a vis employment and staffing and that was causing the administration to take another look at the issue. Looking at Fiscal 2004, you have to recognize that the state was indicating that state aid would be reduced and it was a question of how much, not if. Local receipts have begun to slow and there was a limitation on the amount of tax levy that can be raised. There was no doubt that next fiscal year would be difficult and he was already seeing other areas that will be impacted. At a meeting last week of the West Suburban Health Group, it was projected that health insurance would increase by 18%. There would also be a marginal increase in retirement. If people were going to be laid off, did the early retirement make sense. That was the additional analysis he was working on.

Mr. Hughes questioned if there had been some investigation on what service impacts would result in not replacing the four DPW employees, and Mr. Lemnios responded that there would be some service impact. He hesitated to identify those (impacts) exactly because he was concerned with breaching personnel and privacy issues. If he identified the impacts here, people could deduce who would be considering the early retirement.

If the Board were to accept the bill and the employees filed an application, would they (employees) be afforded the opportunity to take sick and vacation time before the retirement date. Mr. Lemnios explained that it would depend on how much they had accrued by December 31, 2002. The employee must retire by December 31st and in most cases the employee would be encouraged to utilize all of it. For employees who couldn’t, the employee would request that the balance of his/her vacation be paid to them. There were employees who would love to take advantage of the early retirement and have offered to give up some accrued vacation and sick leave buy back. There were people who feel strongly about the issue and recognized that it was not something that was offered often.

Mr. Hughes asked about limiting it to one class, and Mr. Lemnios advised that the Board could limit it to Group 1 and not Group 4 plus the Board could limit the number within the group. However, if it were limited to one class there could be strong sentiment that it was inequitable. He also noted that if the Board were to limit it to Group 1, there was no assurance that participation would only be in departments in which the administration/board had the authority not to replace. Mr. Hughes noted that the School Department was not a separate seniority list, and Mr. Lemnios concurred, adding that it was one seniority list within the group.

Lieutenant VanTassel contended that the department heads didn’t ask the employees. The number might have been off, but it would have been easy for the department heads to see the age. Even with the early retirement, a lot of Group 1 employees will only be getting 34-36%. He felt all of the assumptions being presented to the Board were high and he didn’t think it was a fair shake and the Board was voting on false figures. Lieutenant VanTassel also pointed out that the employees pay into the system and every year they get a statement saying “x” dollars have been paid. Every year the Town kicks in some money. There was a pot of money in the bank sitting there and somewhere along the way there should be money in the system for people to retire. He wished someone was here from the Retirement Board so they could be asked what the retirement system could afford.

Mr. Lemnios explained that back in the early 1990’s the Town recognized the unfunded liability. This year the Town funded $4.6 million and next year it will be $4.7M to pay for the retirements. The employees have contributed, but it was nowhere near the amount necessary for the balance. That was what the Town was funding and that money comes directly from the tax rate. The money was not separate and apart. Every year in December the Town gets a statement from PERAC that says you need to adjust the unfunded liability schedule by ‘x’. The Segal report was a funding schedule and every three years PERAC required the schedule to be updated. There has not been enough money put aside into the system to fund the retirement of all employees. The Town was funding the unfunded. It was not a pot of money.

Alva VanTassel spoke on behalf of the School secretaries. She recognized that the early retirement wasn’t something that the Town had to do and saving money was not a reason to do it, but it would be doing something nice for the Town employees. This was a one-time thing that only benefited a few. It sounded self-serving, but there were a number of employees who were dedicated and this would be a good benefit for them.

Firefighter Michael Haigis told the Board that he would be upset if the Board were to vote tonight because Mr. Lemnios had said that he wasn’t finished with his final report. Everyone knew that the 60 number was not in the picture. Twenty-three was more realistic, but in talking with the unions, he thought the number was smaller than that – maybe 16-18. He knew that no one could look into a crystal ball, but Mr. Lemnios was saying that the Town was probably looking at layoffs and it would be upsetting to everyone in all departments if the Town didn’t take advantage of the early retirement and come next spring someone had to be laid off when the Town could have let someone take advantage of this opportunity.

In response to a comment from Mr. Ball on the issue of people having an opportunity to retire who might get laid off, Mr. Lemnios explained that the discussion wasn’t about the people that would be retiring, but if there were layoffs that this may be a more economical mechanism. Mr. Ball noted that if an employee gets laid off the ongoing costs represented by that employee were nil. Mr. Lemnios mentioned unemployment, but Mr. Ball felt that that was small compared to the retirement benefit that would be paid out to someone who retired. He couldn’t see how the Town and the taxpayers would benefit.

Mr. Lemnios explained that the scenario where early retirement worked and made sense was if the employees were not replaced. If they were not replaced for 21 years, there was a huge savings. He didn’t see the likelihood of being able to say that the positions would stay eliminated for 21 years on services as fundamental as police, fire, schools. If the Town were going to implement the early retirement mechanism now because there were going to be layoffs, in Fiscal 2005 or 2006 the Town would have a burden. If a commitment could be made for a 4-5 year period, that would be reasonable. Anything beyond that would be difficult to project out because there could be any number of changes that would impact it. If there was a certainty that the positions would not need to be replaced for 4-5 years, it would begin to get the number closer to neutral.

Mr. Lemnios stated that he was happy to see the unions represented here because he would love to hear them say publicly that they would not seek replacement for five years and would not bargain for that. The reality was that there would be pressure to replace. It was his personal belief that municipal budgets were going to be under an incredible amount of stress from a state aid perspective.

Mr. Hughes asked if the 23 number assumed that the eligibility would be unlimited or was it setting the number. Mr. Lemnios explained that when the numbers were first presented, there was an actuarial study that demonstrated what would happen if everyone eligible were to take the early retirement. That showed the worst case scenario and the question was who was likely to take it and the 23 was the likely number. It was still up to the Board to set a limit. It could be more than 23 or less than 23.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that there had been another meeting that evening with the Golf Course Oversight Committee, Mr. Lemnios, Finance Director Robert Palmer, and himself to review where this was headed. They were talking about the possibility of reducing the size of the maintenance building to a storage facility only and discussed the possibility of using the DPW to perform the maintenance required for any equipment the golf course used. He clarified that the DPW would not do the actual maintenance, just provide the space.

Mr. Ciccariello continued that a proposal had been received from the DPW on the cost for a 3,600 square foot building that was in the low $80,000’s. What was being talked about was a building that was around 2,000 square feet, just to provide a source of water and electrical service. They needed to look at the original order of conditions from the Conservation Commission regarding what has to go in there if it was a storage building only. He thought they were headed in the right direction and would bring the price tag down to under $100,000.

Mr. Ball noted that the Pegasus rebroadcasts of the Board of Selectmen and School Committee meetings were completely inaudible. The video was spectacular, but none of what was said could be understood. Pegasus has found the problem. The tapes they were making were fine and the problem was in the rebroadcast equipment. It has been fixed and he (Mr. Ball) was sure that tonight’s meeting would come through crystal clear. If it does not, Mr. Ball suggested that a letter go out over the signature of Chairman to Pegasus indicating that they (Pegasus) were not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Ms. Challis explained that although the Board had treated Skipjack’s as a new license, the ABCC wanted to treat it as a transfer and was asking Skipjack’s to be subject to a review by the Department of Revenue. That would mean that if Legal Seafood had any outstanding issues with the Department of Revenue, the Skipjack’s license would be held pending a resolution with Legal Seafood. Ms. Challis advised that she had been informed by the Skipjack attorney that he had filed an informal request for reconsideration and if that were not successful, he was prepared to file a formal appeal.

When asked for an overview of the article, Mr. Lemnios told the Board that this was a citizens petition article. He noted that as TCAN (The Center for Performing Arts) has moved forward they determined that they would like to secure lending to further the renovations underway. The current agreement has a use restriction that restricts it to an arts center and the Town has the right of first refusal with a defined formula.

Mr. Lemnios noted that under the scenario of this article, the Town still retains the right of first refusal and has 180 days to decide. TCAN would have the right to seek financing from an institutional lender, but can take no more than $750,000 of debt. The theory was that after TCAN invested almost $2-l/2 million, the Town would have an opportunity to re-purchase the property for a maximum of $750,000. If the Town did not exercise the right of first refusal, the bank could foreclose absent the use restriction and every dollar over $750,000

would go to the Town. If the Town recovered the building, it would be likely that the Town would seek to remove the restriction because it would be unlikely to have another group step in and operate as an arts center. The thought was that this identifies the Town’s purchase price to no more than $750,000, and in the event TCAN were to go out of business and it was a renovated building, it would be worth well in excess of $750,000. If the bank did foreclose and resold the building and it was worth substantially more than $750,000, the Town would recover $267,000.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how the Town would recover the $267,000. Mr. Lemnios advised that if the Town did not exercise its right of first refusal and the bank sold the property for in excess of $750,000, every dollar up to $267,000 would go to the Town. In follow-up Mr. Hughes questioned how that would happen with the bank, and Mr. Lemnios responded that it would be part of the lending instrument and part of the deed.

Mr. Hughes then questioned if there was some mechanism for the Town to be informed whether the mortgage was being served properly as opposed to the Town finding out the mortgage wasn’t paid for six months. Mr. Lemnios advised that the current proposal didn’t contemplate that, but he thought it would be possible to put that language into the mortgage agreement.

Mr. Ball noted that this by-law sought to give the Police Department some teeth on skateboarders, but he was not sure where he came down on this and would like to hear the position of his colleagues. Some substantial damage to some of the public structures can be seen (from skateboarders), but on the other hand it was not like there was a bomb that went off. He had talked to a number of the skateboarders and about why they didn’t go to the skate park and he was told that the skate park was too far away, there was not a pipe, and they smoke weed. He (Mr. Ball) understood where the Chief was coming from on this and there did need to be a measure of control, but he was not sure this was the right measure. It was almost shooting a mouse with an elephant gun.

Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Ball could suggest the right mechanism for control. He had experienced walking out of Town Hall and nearly being hit. Mr. Ball responded that he didn’t have a substitute motion. He had talked to two dozen kids, many of whom knew the article came up. None of them were able to give him an alternative. The article seems like overkill and to do nothing was wrong as well. He thought the Board needed to make a statement one way or the other and moved that the Board support Article 21. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

Regarding the bulk of the rest of the articles, Mr. Hughes noted that he spoke at the Finance Committee and said that he would be making a request that all of the articles be referred back to the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Finance Committee or a sub set of those to be studied and if that was not acceptable, there were some (articles) he would move not to support. Mr. Hughes further noted that he saw Town Counsel John Flynn speaking at the Finance Committee and there was

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he knew a lot of the articles were housekeeping and he had no problem doing some housekeeping. For others it was difficult to figure out what was trying to be cleaned up and like Mr. Hughes he had a problem supporting some of them. I.e. Article 57 essentially was put on the warrant to generate discussion and there was no past discussion with the School Committee or Board of Selectmen and correspondence was received from Keefe Tech that should the Town support this, they (Keefe Tech) would have to change their agreement.

Finance Committee Chairman Frank Foss felt there was no wordsmithing at the Finance Committee meeting. Town Counsel had been asked to answer questions with regard to language in the proposed by-laws. There were only two articles with amendments crafted by the Finance Committee and it was putting the language back into the Charter that was there before – Articles 39 (Recreation) and Article 42 (Delinquent taxpayers). He was here tonight by vote of the Finance Committee to inform the Selectmen of the FinCom’s votes. He reported that a number of the FinCom members were concerned and disturbed by Mr. Hughes’ suggestion of referral and it was debated very vigorously. The FinCom members felt they had a duty and they had done their job.

Mr. Hughes countered that he was not suggesting that the Finance Committee shouldn’t have done its job. Maybe wordsmithing was a poor choice of terms, but there were a number of questions of what words would mean should these articles pass and Mr. Flynn had an opinion and the Finance Committee had different opinions and there will be different opinions on Town Meeting floor and that was what disturbed him.

the FinCom was concerned with changing the current constituency of the Recreation & Parks Commission. They did not agree that there should be five members and heard testimony from Recreation that the Commission was opposed to that. The FinCom recommended putting language back in that there be five elected and four appointed by the Board of Selectmen. As to why not just recommend IP, Mr. Foss explained that the FinCom thought some changes were appropriate. The Recreation &

Paul Connolly spoke on behalf of the Chairman of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee, Raphael Herz, and told the Board that Mr. Herz was concerned about the suggestion to refer the articles to a study committee. He was concerned because it was a blanket indictment of all the work that’s been done and spoke to the process. The Board of Selectmen sent a letter to the committee that said they (committee) had failed because the process was not led by Town Counsel. That was not the process. Town Meeting appoints the committee and the committee gets the assistance of Town Counsel where needed. The process says that anything should be filtered through the Town Administrator if there was a request of Town Counsel and the committee did follow that. In May 2002 and June 2002 there was a conversation with the Acting Town Administrator and the Acting Town Administrator suggested that the committee couldn’t be giving Town Counsel all these things and the most appropriate time to give them to Town Counsel would be in August, September when the review was taking place. If there was anything pressing, the committee could maybe make a telephone call. The committee followed the Acting Town Administrator’s suggestion. The committee also followed the Selectmen’s suggestion for a breakdown between housekeeping and non-housekeeping articles and appeared before the Board on September 9 to explain some things.

The committee understood that there was a lot of material, and it was unfortunate that the Board was not able to review the articles so they could give their input to the Finance Committee, but the committee hoped the Board of Selectmen would not go for a blanket referral. They had no problem on specific articles (referring) to provide the opinion of the Board to Town Meeting. He pointed out that this was a legislative committee set up by Town Meeting and the committee wants input from the Board of Selectmen, but it was Town Meeting’s prerogative. It was up to Town Meeting to decide whether the articles were good or bad.

overwhelmed. His first reaction was to pass it off to someone else, but it was the responsibility of the committee to do what they have done. They (Charter & By-Law Review Committee) were doing what they were charged to do and for the Board to say the committee gave them too much stuff or send it to another group was wrong and a dereliction of duty. The Board was not required to make a recommendation on any of the proposed articles, and he would not support a referral recommendation of the whole shooting match.

Mr. Ball explained that the article sought to raise the bar for requiring a preliminary election. It was his feeling that there were too many preliminary elections and these elections were costly. The question was does the Town need preliminary elections and what functions do they serve. In an analysis from 1967-2002, he found that in that time there were 19 preliminary elections and 11 of the 19 would have gone away if this article had been passed. He didn’t buy the argument that if there were more than two people seeking a single seat, voters would be confused.

Mr. Ball continued that there was the argument that if there were more than two, that person could be elected by less than a plurality. He supposed that that was true, but it (preliminary election) was a weeding out process and whether it was 2 or 1, whatever the end result, it ends up the same. It was a cost to the Town and to the candidates and the community. He thought having to run two campaigns back-to-back discouraged people from running.

Mr. Hughes stated that he was opposed to the article. Having participated in the last preliminary, he didn’t see it as a burden and cost was the last thing he thought of in terms of people in the country exercising their right to vote. As this article was drafted, there could be six people running for Board of Selectmen and the lead vote getter could get 17% and be elected as a Selectman. The reasons put forward to do away with this weren’t the reasons to take away the process where there would be a clear choice between a select number of candidates. It was a small enough electorate and that would be made even smaller (without preliminary) and that didn’t sit right with him.

In making the motion, Mr. Ciccariello noted that for many years Natick had a Planning Director. At some point in time there was no longer a Planning Director and it was now being called a Community Development Director. He would like to afford the new Town Administrator the opportunity to evaluate the department and come back to the Board and community with some advice as to whether there should be a Planning Director or if the Community Director filled that role.

Mr. Hughes noted that this was one of the articles where there had been considerable discussion with the Finance Committee and Town Counsel and what it meant. He thought the general intent was to exclude someone who had a home office, but there was some real concern how that would be confusing. There was some discussion about why anybody should be excluded. He thought the concept was good, but there had been a lot of discussion how it would be applied.

Mr. Hughes stated that he had a problem with the re-write of Section “C” which seems to give the authority to members of each of the boards to make a request of Town Counsel where it used to read only the chairman upon the vote of the majority could make a request for Town Counsel. His concern was that it expands the number of persons in the Town who have the authority to request advice from Town Counsel without a vote of that Board to do it. Every member of the Finance Committee. Every member of the School Committee can make the request. He preferred that the language remain that only by and through the chairman after the vote of the majority of the board.

Mr. Connolly thought that the Finance Committee had supported the article because they didn’t want to mandate it in the by-law. The Town administration could take whatever action it wished. There was a legal notice in the paper on Friday for overdue taxes and someone was published for owing $106.00 and another for $43.00. He felt the Finance Committee was convinced that this specific section in the by-law may have been good when there was an independent Treasurer/Collector, but it wasn’t necessary now. The Town administration should actively collect taxes, but this language wasn’t needed.

School Committee member Michael Cashman told the Board that when this article came up 1-2 years ago, he was sensitive to it because of his profession as a bankruptcy lawyer. He felt it was wrong for the Town to be publishing that $61.00 was owed. It was embarrassing to people who owe this minimum amount of money and the cost of the legal notice far exceeded the amount of money to be collected. Based on his practice, he had to speak to the fact that the Town should be very sensitive to these notices going out.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that your name didn’t get published unless you haven’t dealt with the Town. Mr. Ciccariello’s name wasn’t published because he got the notice and dealt with the Town and it was found to be a mistake. The Town didn’t run around and willy nilly have names published. By the time it gets to publication, the Town has done everything it can. The publication was for those taxes that the Town can’t get anyone to cooperate on and address it.