Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 2-22-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 2-22-22 Minutes

Please note this transcription is unofficial. If you find an error, use the contact page to notify Plymouth On The Record.

Chris Badot:

You’re live.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Welcome back everyone. The first order of business tonight will be a public hearing. In accordance with Chapter 138 of the Massachusetts General Laws as amended notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held remotely on Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022 at 6:00 PM to consider the application for a transfer of an Annual Wine and Malt Package Store license from The Store at Sandy Pond Inc., 832 Bourne Road, Richard Doonan III to New Camp Corp doing business as The Store at Sandy Pond 832 Bourne Road, Paresh Patel Manager. Description of premises will be as follows: One floor, five total rooms, 4800 square feet, one entrance and three exits. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter should plan to attend this meeting. I now declare this meeting open. I’m going to bring it out to the general public for us, and then I’ll bring it back to our board. Is there anyone in the audience waiting to comment in favor of this application, Chris? This transfer.

Chris Badot:

No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this transfer?

Chris Badot:

No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Seeing none, I’m going to close the hearing to the public and bring it back to the board for questions and their wishes. Gentlemen?

Matthew Porter:

Thank you, Mr. Quintal. Matthew Porter here, I’m the attorney for New Camp Corp. So, if it pleases the board, I can just give an overview of the transaction.

Dick Quintal:

If you’d like, sure. Go right ahead, sir.

Matthew Porter:

Sure. So, this is the transfer of the Beer and Wine license that’s related to The Store of Sandy Pond. The sale that business at 832 Bourne Road in Plymouth. Along with me today is Paresh Patel. Mr. Patel is the president of the corporation. He’ll also be the license manager. Very experienced operator. He has other liquor store locations as well as convenience stores with a business in Plymouth as well. So, very experienced ownership group coming in here. No major anticipated changes to the store whatsoever. No changes to the structure or the business hours. There is a Pledge of License to RockIand Trust who is financing the transaction, but otherwise a pretty straightforward transfer of the Beer and Wine License.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Any questions from the board for Mr. Patel? Bringing it back to the board.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion to approve.

Harry Helm:

I’ll second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you and good luck.

Paresh Patel:

Thank you.

Matthew Porter:

Thank you, sir. Have a good evening.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Public hearing on the cemetery fees. Mr. King, are you presenting?

Kenneth King:

Yes. Can you hear me?

Dick Quintal:

Barely, but welcome.

Kenneth King:

Welcome Select Board. So, I’m here tonight to ask for your support for raising rates in the cemetery. They haven’t been done in about nine years. Currently, our rates are a lot lower than surrounding towns or private cemeteries.

First, I’d like to explain to you where the money goes in the cemeteries as far as where the funds go. So, when someone purchases a lot in Plymouth, half of the lot is split and half of it goes to the perpetual care, half of it goes into sale of lots. Both of those funds support the department with equipment, projects, supplies that are needed to maintain the town cemeteries. We do have one revolving fund that’s generated through the sale of foundations. That fund is utilized each year for mostly tree work, stump grinding, stump stone repair and water line repairs also. So, with that, in the last two years the cemetery has had two price increases. In the last year, the cemetery that’s farther down on the Carver line has had at least one price increase.

0:05:04

Kenneth King:

The prices that we have been charging the townspeople for many years has been on the lower end. So, I believe it has increased the sale of lots, people are buying more lots than they need, and that has been an issue especially considering that we’re running out of space. So, my suggestion is, which I hope you have in front of you my proposed rates, I know Harry last week was in support of the non-resident rate and if that is an issue that could be increased also through the board. I’d be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Dick Quintal:

Is there any way you can share this slide with the public and anybody that might be watching? If you send it over to Lee or Chris.

Kenneth King:

I don’t have a slide.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Is there any–here we go. Lee’s got it. There we go. So, this is the proposal that you’re putting forward tonight, correct?

Kenneth King:

Correct.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this particular time? I can see Patrick. So, Patrick, you all set? Well, there you are. I can see you now.

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, no, I know that we talked about the non-resident rate, and we also heard some of the thoughts on people who might have been here for a long time and then not residents at the end and I think that might be worth a discussion, but I would lean towards not having that separate for that exact reason if someone called Plymouth home for their whole life, and just in the last few years moved somewhere and wants to be here. I think that’s the reason why I’d be leaning not to have a non-resident rate.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board? And this would take effect immediately, Ken, right? Correct?

Kenneth King:

I would like it to. I mean, I would like to give the funeral homes about two weeks’ notice for the rates, but as far as lot sales, I would like that to be placed immediately if possible.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie and then Harry.

Charlie Bletzer:

Hey, Kenny and I know I’ve seen it you’ve given it to us. What are the non-resident rates for competing cemeteries?

Kenneth King:

That I don’t have right in front of me. I mean, some of the times, it’s usually right around the $200 to $400 range. Duxbury is about $200. They’re right around the same price as we are. Currently, our lots of residents are at 800, non-residents are a thousand.

Charlie Bletzer:

Wait, no, because we’re currently at a thousand for resident.

Kenneth King:

No, we’re at $800.

Dick Quintal:

$800.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’m sorry. And you want to go to $2400.

Kenneth King:

Correct.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, what are the other towns? What are they, 1,000, 1200?

Kenneth King:

About 1,000 to 1200, correct. I will say that some of the other towns have not revised their rates in a much longer time than the Town of Plymouth. They do not sell as many lots as we do. They don’t do as many burials as we do. Also, when you start looking at the private cemeteries how much a lot is sometimes, they’re more than three times what the Town of Plymouth is charging.

Charlie Bletzer:

I mean, I agree with–

Kenneth King:

Lots are selling quickly because of this.

Charlie Bletzer:

I agree with Patrick and Harry, but there’s also supply and demand and until we get some new cemeteries online which could take, I’m not sure how long it’s going to take: a couple of years, a few years. We have a real supply problem, so I think we have to have a different price for non-residents. Does it have to be three times the price? Probably not, but I think it should be higher than the resident price.

Kenneth King:

Well, my proposed rate would be twice as much. A resident lot would go up to $1200 and non-resident would be $2400.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Just to address something Mr. Bletzer just said. I actually don’t think Patrick and I agree. I actually agree that non-residents because of in last week’s meeting, JB and Ken both mentioned that we’re selling through lots faster than we really have the capacity to handle.

0:10:06

Harry Helm:

Because we are less expensive than neighboring, than surrounding areas. And this proposal brings a non-resident lot from $1,000 to $2400. I believe Patrick was saying and Patrick, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, that you thought that was a problem and that non-residents should pay the same amount as the proposed resident fee which is $1200, rather than the $2400 for non-residents as opposed. Am I correct?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah. I think, I might have misspoke a little bit. I think it was that there’s a $200 differential now and what we’re proposing is a $1200 differential. So, it was the increasing the surcharge is what I was not really clear about earlier but I agree, I would still be in favor of this if this is the recommendation. I just think that that example of someone who, and Ken can probably be the one who sees him on the ground and talks to people most, it was sort of a compelling example of when someone lived here for a very, very, very long time and wanted to come back. And so, my thought was if we got us up to more the market rate then we wouldn’t necessarily have people that were coming here just because it was less expensive at the regular rate. I mean, if that’s the proposal, I’m not totally against the higher-higher rate. I just think that the times two to $2400 seemed a little bit like a lot, so.

Dick Quintal:

Well, I still feel for that person that might move downwards, and then something happens and then want to come home and be buried here. That’s my concern. But to go along and in the spirit of compromise, I will support this tonight, but it’d be my hope that when we have more space that that might be changed or unless you have a way to address that, Ken. Have you put any thought into there’s somebody–I mean, say one of us for the sake of talking moves down to Florida or Georgia or wherever and then it’s your hope that you come back here because some of your family is buried here or your family is living here? I mean, that was my only issue. If you were saying to me, this guy from California is flying in and going to be buried here and with no ties at all then actually, it’s different, but how do you figure that out, I guess?

Kenneth King:

Well, it has been a struggle for me to think about denying non-residents with what you’re talking about right now. But when we don’t have extra lots to sell, that’s the issue that we have out in front of us. The lot sales should just never be on the cheaper end. I’ve had many people tell me how cheap the Town of Plymouth goes and the grand scheme of things in a funeral, a lot of bison services for burials is extremely cheap. A lot of the money that is generated from these funds in the last two years, it’s probably generated $450,000 with equipment in projects, pending projects that aren’t on the tax rolls. It’s being supported by user fees.

Dick Quintal:

And just so the board knows that this has been over years’ worth of meetings that our committee has gone through all of us. I mean, so we’ve asked a lot of the questions and all in here. I’m only asking you, so people that might be watching might say, “Well, gee, I didn’t hear no talk about this,” or somebody wrote a remark last week about we only interviewed Derek Brindisi for an hour. While that wasn’t the case. There were many hours put into that, but the social call television time was limited because we’d already done our homework. So, that’s why I asked some of the questions I asked. Any other questions from the board? Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

And Mr. Chairman, yeah, I agree with what you just said looking at these rates. Until we get some more cemeteries online, but I would go with these changes and then when the supply gets–when we get a couple more cemeteries, and then we can adjust the rates at that point right now. But right now, we’re pretty close. I mean, Kenny, what are we, a year or two away from having new–is it a couple of years?

0:15:07

Kenneth King:

I’m hoping it’s at least two years. It might be a little bit longer.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s not a long time.

Kenneth King:

But recently, we’ve had a lot of burials, full burials that were recent and people needed to come in and just buy one lot, and it was about five lots within a two-week span. So, it depends. There are many factors to figure that out, but yeah, it is tough.

Dick Quintal:

As a committee and Ken, I agree with you. Once we get through this part of it then the next phase is going to be bringing you back the options of what you actually have for the new space and where they are throughout the town and anything you might come across. So, is there any more questions on the board? If not, take a motion.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll make the motion.

Dick Quintal:

Motion to approve as presented. Do I have a second?

Patrick Flaherty:

I’ll second that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Second, Patrick. All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you, Mr. King.

Kenneth King:

Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. We have some town meeting articles, and if memory serves me, one was pulled because we needed to get a little more information, a few more numbers. Good evening, Mr. Keohan. How are you?

Charlie Bletzer:

You’re muted, Bill.

Dick Quintal:

You’re muted, Bill.

Bill Keohan:

Now as we speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Bill Keohan with the Community Preservation Committee. We have three articles that we’re moving towards town meeting. Two of them I’m prepared to present tonight 16B and C. A is for the funding for Stephen’s Field, and we’re waiting for the final cost estimates that are coming in from Beals and Thomas Engineering. I wanted to hold on that presentation until I had exact numbers. And so, I would ask that we hold on 16A and go to 16B.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Bill Keohan:

Okay. Article 16B is a request for CPA funding for Jenney Pond. Jenney Pond obviously is a landmark park in our downtown along our waterfront, along our town brook. Over the last 20 years, the Preservation Committee and the Community Preservation Act in town meeting has utilized the fund to acquire land along the town brook connecting our waterfront to our town forest. In this vicinity, after fish ladders were removed, dams were removed, the last effort in this area is to rejuvenate Jenney Pond. Material has to be removed, dredging has to occur to improve the ecological condition of the pond for passage of the fish that we’ve made way for by removing dams and ladders, but also making it more enjoyable for the residents.

Jenney Pond was once a landmark park where many people went for Sunday night concerts and the park has moved into a situation where it’s not fully utilized. This would act as a catalyst for that. The CPA funding is for a full request for funding, but the way that the Finance Department will draft the motion is that any grants that are secured by David Gould’s office, David Gould is going after a grant in excess of a million dollars that would be applied to this request in reducing the request down to the appropriate amount after we hopefully receive the grant. This is something that we’ve done in coordination with the Office of Marine Environmental Affairs as they move for grants from the state is that we are fully requesting the funding from town meeting because the grant we’re going after is a reimbursement grant.

Again, the focus has been on this location for the next last 20 years, Jenney Pond is moving into its final phases of restoration. There are plans for the bridge to be rebuilt, there’s lighting that’s planned for this location. And in recent years, the CPA did acquire the Huntley Preserve, which acquired the land on the other side of Jenney Pond. So, now, we own as a town all around Jenney Pond. So, this is a long-term goal of seeing the pond renovated to a more functional park and a more reliant environmental resource as these herring migrate through this location. I could take questions on Article 16B.

Dick Quintal:

Questions from board members, comments? Mr. Helm.

0:20:03

Harry Helm:

Yeah, question, Bill for you or for David Gould, if one of you could go more into detail as to what this project entails: the environmental reasons, the herring reasons and also the details of the project itself, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Bill Keohan:

David’s here to answer those questions. David?

David Gould:

Good evening, everyone. So, this project would entail dredging of Jenney Pond, which is an artificial impoundment. It’s created by the presence of Jenney Pond Dam that was last dredged in 1968. So, we’re talking about 54 years of accumulated sediment that has migrated downstream during that time frame as well as sediment that’s gone down as part of the dam removal project. So, the capacity of the impoundment when we looked at it from a natural perspective, it should be dredged about every 25 years. So, we’re well in excess of that at this point in time. So, that would be the natural bed load that migrates downstream. And since Jenney Pond is the last and now the only dam on Town Brook that’s where most of the sediment will settle. The proposal calls for an increase in depth of about five feet, so if you’re standing at Spring Lane, which is the road that goes into Jenney Park standing there which is the dam. I went over to the footbridge. From the dam to the footbridge, you would have an increase in water depth of down to five feet. That material based on the testing is similar to all the other material that we’ve removed from Town Brook over the years. Throughout the various dam removal projects, we’ve removed in excess of 15,000 cubic yards that otherwise would have made it down to this location as well.

That material has some elevated levels of lead from leaded gas use that came into Town Brook from route three years ago, as well as arsenic from agricultural upstream uses. So, because of those elevated levels, that material will need to go to a landfill in the commonwealth, and that’s really the biggest driver of the cost is the trucking and disposal tipping fee. We would implement this dredging through hydraulic dredging as opposed to mechanical. So, we’re not going to be out there with excavators and that type of thing. We’re going to do it by hydraulically dredging, which is essentially a huge, if you want to think of it as a big hose with a suction tube at the end, which would then pump it into things called Geotubes. A flocculant would be added to that, and it would dry out in those Geotubes. When the materials suitably dry those, it would be cut open, put into trucks and driven to the landfill for disposal. That is the cleanest, most efficient way to dredging in a location like this especially when you’re getting in and around infrastructure and roadways, the spillway of the dam and those types of things. So, it also results in the most maneuverability. So, you’re not driving trucks and excavators on the shoreline. You’re just simply using the hydraulic dredge to pump it to the location which you’re going to temporarily handle it. So, unless there are other questions, that’s the overview I can provide right now.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yeah, David, what’s the time frame for this project? How long will it take?

David Gould:

The actual construction shouldn’t take more than two months. And I’d say the largest part of that is going to be having those Geotubes located in the back of the park while that material dewaters then they’ll be cut open and put into trucks. So, the time of year restrictions that we’re going to be working with for this project is going to be a late fall/winter project based on time of year passage for river herring. So, this will be a strictly late fall-winter time project, so it shouldn’t impact any of the businesses significantly or any of the tourism that you would normally see in spring, summer or fall.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, where will all the equipment be staged? Because a lot of the–

David Gould:

Yeah, we’re going to be utilizing the far back of the park. So, in and around the vicinity of the cul-de-sac way in the back, there’s a lawn area and a cul-de-sac back in that location. That will be the area which the Geotubes will be located.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, up near the Grist Mill dead end?

David Gould:

As far away from the Grist Mill as you can in the park. So, that parking lot winds past the footbridge towards the very rear of the park where there’s the cul-de-sac, where the buses turn around. I think that’s far back portion of the park itself.

Charlie Bletzer:

Okay. All right. Thank you.

0:25:00

Dick Quintal:

Any other questions for David or Bill? I just have one comment, Bill and I spoke briefly to you about it. I hope when you do the lighting that you do green lighting, solar lighting. It’s time the town start getting on the green side. We had a lot of talk, but we got to start doing it. So, I think this is a perfect project and I hope you will do that and I hope the town meeting members watching will remind you of that at town meeting or we could include it in our motion tonight. But however, I trust you if you say you’ll look into it. That’s really what I hope, so.

Bill Keohan:

That’s an interesting point. The CPC has been talking about green lighting for its parks that’s involved in Jenney Pond. We have already set aside funding for that purpose. That was in a previous article, and we’ll make sure that that gets brought up as we move into the final phases of that work. And as we move forward in next week’s presentation on Stephens Fields, you’ll see some lighting that we’re putting in there that will be focused on that level of consumption. So, this dredging article doesn’t really touch on the lighting as much as the previous article, but taking your advice and the committee’s advice, we’ll be including that in our future discussions. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Bill. Appreciate it. Wishes of the board?

Harry Helm:

A motion that we support.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second it.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. 16C, Bill.

Bill Keohan:

16C. Mr. Chairman, this is an article that is an administrative article that we put forth every year. It is in coordination with our Finance Department, Lynne Barrett drafts the article, and it’s basically a requirement of the statute that we’ve set aside 10% of the income for the Community Preservation Act fund for housing historical and open space. We also set up an account for administrative activities. We could request step to five, but we’ll only ask for four. Any funds that we don’t use in that administrative article revert back to the fund and reallocated by the next fiscal year. That fund’s used for appraisals, our due diligence, things of that nature. But it’s basically an administrative article that we put forth every spring in coordination with the Finance Department to be prepared for the next fiscal year for the revenue of the CPA.

Dick Quintal:

Questions for Bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to the board.

Patrick Flaherty:

I make a motion to approve 16C.

Charlie BLetzer:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you, Bill.

Bill Keohan:

Thank you. Have a nice evening.

Dick Quintal:

You too. Now, we’re going to go to Mr. Hartman for the town manager’s report.

Lee Hartman:

So, as you can see earlier as we’ve discussed various negotiations, I really don’t have anything to report between that and the long weekend. So, I have nothing for today.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Chris, is there anyone wishing to speak under public comment?

Chris Badot:

Not that I can see. No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. If we miss somebody or somebody should come in feel free to buzz in and let me know. Okay? This is never an issue.

Now, we’re going to move on to the licenses and administrative notes. Franciscano’s of Plymouth Incorporated doing business as Ocho Café Tacos and Tequila, 275 Colony Place is requesting the following licenses:

• Sunday entertainment (Live)
• Extension of hours (1:00 AM)
• Early Sunday sales (10:00 AM)

Patrick Flaherty:

So, moved.

Harry Helm:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. We have 6 administrative notes. Any questions or comments or anybody wants to take any separate? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

I’d like to request that we take number five. The board will vote to allow the April 2nd, 2022 Spring Town meeting separately as I know that there are representatives from the Committee of Precinct Chairs who wish to speak, but they I do not believe anticipated that we would move so quickly through the agenda.

0:30:11

Dick Qiuntal:

Okay. So, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Do we have any movement on those?

Patrick Flaherty:

Get some movement on those.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Do I have a second?

Harry Helm:

Second:

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Discussion? All those in favor? So, unanimous. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. And number 5, we’ll take up separately, because there may be some people willing to speak on this. Lee, before we do that, can you just touch on this a little bit so everybody understands it first?

Lee Hartman:

And also, we put this on at the end of last week. We hadn’t gone through all the logistics, so I’ll note a couple changes to the memo you have. So, the way this is set up is if town meeting votes to go virtual then we’re all set. We go virtual and we proceed through town meeting just like we’ve done before. If there’s not a majority of town meeting members willing to meet virtually, that means we have to go to a plan B. And without this administrative note, the plan B would be that we’d have to start all over, repost the warrant for a new time and date certain and go through the whole logistics of rescheduling town meeting. So, what this allows us to do is to go ahead remotely for that Saturday. If there is not a majority vote of town meeting for that, we would then be able to have an adjourned session that could automatically go straight to then and the recommendation after we’ve gone through and talked to the town moderator, the school department, PACTV and electronic polling would be April 16th at 8:00 AM. So, to note two changes to that memo you have, it would be April 16th at 8:00 AM and we want to make it clear, it’s both the Spring Special and the Annual Town Meeting that would be moved or adjourned to that night, if we didn’t have a majority vote to go virtual on the first Saturday.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. So, does that clarify it for everybody or do we need to have a discussion over this?

Patrick Flaherty:

Just the question on the date. It says the fourth? Is it the 16th?

Lee Hartman:

Right. So, what happened is when Chris and I first put this in as a placeholder I would call it for the board, we hadn’t gone through with the town moderator, the school department and the electronic voting.

Patrick Flaherty:

Okay. Got it.

Lee Hartman:

And after we talked to them over the weekend, we found that the Saturday’s 16th at 8:00 AM would work best for everyone and gives them time to adjust to have to do it in person.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone wishing to speak? So, it’s just really a language thing that they can go any option they want. It’s their destination.

Lee Hartman:

So, if town meeting chooses not to go virtually, this gives the ability fairly quickly to–

Dick Quintal:

Just covering it so that they can. Yeah, right. Mr. Brewster, do you still want to comment on that? Please.

Wrestling Brewster:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me speak. I’m speaking on behalf of the Precinct Chairs. We had a meeting last night and had a lengthy discussion with the moderator on the form of town meeting. Just a little history, months and months ago when the moderator came to the Precinct Chairs talking about how he wanted to do Spring Town Meeting, we signified to him that Precinct Chairs really wanted an in-person part of that town meeting. And we asked, pleaded with him that he have both in his pocket that he was working on both, so that if we ended up where we are, the numbers are going down, and it’s getting safer that we would be able to do some form of in-person meeting. And with all due respect to the moderator, it doesn’t seem like that happened at all. I know that moderator keeps telling the fact that legislation gives him the power to do whatever he wants and I just would just like to make a couple of points. Town meeting is a responsibility becoming a town meeting member.

0:35:04

Wrestling Brewster:

My father was a town meeting member for 30 years, and he told me that one of the things that basically you need to pay attention throughout the year, but twice a year, you met, you assembled, you discussed things. And face-to-face discussion and debate is what makes town meeting the sheerest form of democracy. If I’m standing in front of one of the department heads and I ask a question, it’s going to get answered. Right now, the way it is, they call it in. The department heads do a video weeks before, and it’s just I fear that we’re getting away from our responsibility. I hear a lot of town meeting members–I’ve got two town meeting members in my precinct who have never been to an in-person meeting. And I fear that we’re calling it in, and that I’ve got town meeting members saying, “Well, it’s so much easier and so much nicer.” It’s not town meeting, and it’s not the form of democracy that we know. We need to have in-person town meeting back. And I continually hear from the moderator, “Well, next time, we’ll look at it.” I urge this board to reconsider its vote to allow town meeting virtually. I would rather that we make some decisions before town meeting instead of having to have town meeting, getting it voted down and then having to go to the 16th. We took a poll of town meeting members, Precinct Chairs does, Alan has that and I’m sure he’s going to mention that, but I just urge this board that we really need to look at town meeting and get back to what we’re supposed to be doing. I hear people saying, “Well, it’s so much easier to be virtual.” Well, you signed up to do a job and part of that job is go to town meeting twice a year in-person. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Lee, I have to ask you one more time. By us voting this, that gives them the right to open up town meeting and vote to go virtual or in-person, correct?

Lee Hartman:

Correct. I think though what Mr. Brewster is referring to is he would like you not to even do that at all. Make the decision on your own and just have town meeting as an open town meeting in-person and not put it to a vote of town meeting.

Dick Quintal:

And when do I have to decide this as a board?

 

Lee Hartman:

Well, logistically, we should be doing it as soon as possible. I would also have to check with town council that if you choose not to do this, whether or not that forces them–

Dick Quintal:

Harry, I can see you. Can you wait? Lee’s got the floor. Please. Go ahead, Lee. I’m sorry.

Lee Hartman:

I’d also want to check with town council to see if you choose not to allow for a virtual by not sending the memo, if that settles the deal that it then has to be in-person.

Wrestling Brewster:

Lee, if I may, I believe you’d have to have somebody who voted in the affirmative in the last vote about virtual meeting to reconsider.

Lee Hartman:

That’s really a town meeting rule.

Wrestling Brewster:

Okay, I’m sorry.

Dick Quintal:

Harry and Patrick.

Harry Helm:

It’s my understanding that we do not have provenance in this, that our vote the other day was more say cosmetic, and that the town moderator has the right and the ability to determine whether it’s held virtually or not, and that at that town meeting, that the town moderator has determined is virtual that the first order of business is that the head of the Finance Committee, Mr. Canty will bring up whether or not the members, the representatives agree to keep it virtual and if they do not then this would. But it’s my understanding and perhaps I’m wrong, it’s the town moderator’s call whether this starts out as virtual or not on April the 2nd.

0:40:04

Wrestling Brewster:

I believe you have to prove it. Just like you did last week.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we clarified that what we’re being asked to vote on tonight is about allowing for the in-person meeting to happen two weeks later if it’s voted down by the town meeting body. So, I think I heard something that was–we’ve heard a couple of things that weren’t really accurate. So, I think what Mr. Brewster is saying is the board could bring up and reconsider an earlier vote, which was a recommendation or I’m not totally sure if that was us allowing it or if that was just a cosmetic as Mr. Helm said, but that’s different from what the actual vote tonight is. It’s more just saying, “Hey, we don’t need to totally undo everything with town meeting if the vote is not to have it virtual, but rather have it in-person as the backup for that if that’s a no vote.” So, I think that’s two separate things that are coming together here that are a little bit different. But the piece that I think is really, really important, which I don’t know the answer to, is that when we voted previously to have the town meeting be virtual as an option was that giving the moderator the option to go virtual or in-person or if we didn’t do that, would there not have been virtual on the table from a statutory standpoint. I think that’s the piece that I don’t know what the answer is. I thought that was the board giving the option, otherwise there wouldn’t be the ability to do virtual town meeting.

Wrestling Brewster:

And as I understand it through you, Mr. Chair–as I understand it, the moderator has to come to the Select Board and get approval for the form of town meeting. That’s what the moderator said that he had gone and done. Just to further the discussion, I know Alan has the results of a survey we did, and I am bringing this up from Precinct Chair, we had dire concerns about this and Alan is also here for Precinct Chairs.

Alan Costello:

Mr. Chairman, if I might bring in that aspect of it.

Dick Quintal:

Sure, why not.

Alan Costello:

Well, as Mr. Brewster said, the Committee of Precinct Chairs met last night. My name is Alan Costello. I represent Precinct 10. I’m a Precinct Chair, and the Precinct Chairs conducted a survey monkey study survey in the last week. Three questions appeared on the survey: the first one was, and the survey was addressed to all 135 town meeting members. First question asked, if you would prefer a face-to-face Spring Town meeting. That received 49% of the vote in favor of an in-person meeting versus 41% against in-person. The second question which I think is the sort of the question that gets lost here a little bit, and I’d like to come back to in a short time, but the question reads: would you prefer a hybrid Spring Town Meeting? And this one received a 53% in favor, really popular with the town meeting members versus a 35% against a hybrid. And then the third question: would you prefer a virtual town meeting? This one, the yes votes for a virtual town meeting were 42% versus a no vote. This is a no vote, the did not want a virtual, these are your town meeting members to represent you all throughout town, 48%, almost 49% did not want a virtual town meeting. And to Mr. Brewster’s point, this is the type of dialogue we’ve had with the moderator over the last three months of COPC meetings. And during that period, he told us that he was going to have a two-pronged approach to town meeting. He was going to work towards a face-to-face meeting, but he was also going to be prepared to do a virtual. And then some things happened with the spike of Omicron and the Board of Health made some decisions, and I think the moderator at that time went on a little bit of his own and went after the virtual. He waited for the legislation to go through on the state level, involved your committee, your board and he needs your approval in order to have a strictly virtual town meeting.

0:45:12

Alan Costello:

Mr. Helm is right. Town meeting’s first order of business, we can overrule both you, your board and the moderator, and shut down the meeting on the first question. What would happen in the past, the moderator has told us we can do that, but all he’s going to do is move it out 30 days and have another virtual town meeting. Now at least there’s a provision to have a face-to-face meeting, April 16th, but what we’d like to have you do is rescind your vote of that. I guess, it was three meetings ago and reconsider the vote, and take the Board of Selectmen completely out of this process and let’s try to have a hybrid or an in-person meeting on the second because I feel that based on last night’s meeting at the Committee of Precinct Chairs, there is an appetite to turn down the meeting Saturday morning at 8:30. And we’ll all have to go home at an extra cost and come back two weeks later. We feel as the Committee of Precinct Chairs, it’s time to have an in-person meeting done correctly with all your protocols, all your COVID protections in place and let’s get back in an in-person environment and have this meeting.

The other point that came up last night and is sort of disturbing everyone is sort of in favor as the survey stated for a hybrid type of meeting, where if you’re not comfortable going to the meeting, we certainly have the technology to keep you on a virtual platform. However, if you are comfortable, you can assemble at Plymouth North High School and do the business of the people. However, the moderator has said that the hybrid option is off the table. He’s consulted town council, and they feel the new legislation precludes a hybrid component. When pushed on it, he had very little proof of that and quite honestly it was astounding, his email to the town council was a single word email, “hybrid?” to the town council, and they went off of that and made the decisions and quite honestly taking hybrid off the table. I would like the town manager, the acting town manager to get us a determination to prove that and tell us that hybrid is off the table because the hybrid is the best option going forward, and I think everyone can get on board at hybrid and do a terrific Spring Town Meeting this upcoming April. But we’d like your support in at least reviewing your vote and taking the Select Board’s vote out of the equation. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

I agree, Alan. When we voted before, I voted for in-person. The vote was three to two, but as a former town meeting member, it’s much more effective being in-person. I would go to the meetings and I would talk to people, certain people I respected and I would get information that sometimes I changed one of my votes and vice versa. I could go there and talk to people and sway them to vote, give them some information that they didn’t have that I had, and they change their votes. So, it’s very effective plus you can get up there, get right up in the mic and ask your questions and it’s a much more effective way of doing business. Right now, the masks coming off in school, things are getting safer, and I just think we really have to do this right. The moderator is too much power. I mean, I’m sorry, but if town meeting wants to do it this way, then we should do it. But you’re right, Alan and Wrestling, we don’t want to go there and have this thing everybody go home at 8:30 and waste a day and it happens to explain it. So, this is something we have to get this done now if we can do it. Okay? So, we can have a town meeting without delay. But if we vote again tonight, I’ll do the same way. I want to see an in-person or a hybrid at the worst. So, thank you.

0:50:08

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Hutchinson would like to say something.

Joseph Hutchinson:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Joe Hutchinson. I’m the Chairman of the Precinct 12 Caucus. Several of my members are older voters and are reluctant to come to an in-person meeting. I was at the meeting of the precinct chairs last night and although all due respect to Alan and Wrestling, I didn’t necessarily agree with the sentiments that they are proposing here. Likewise, I’d also point out that the COPC didn’t vote on this. So, what you’re hearing here from Alan and Wrestling are their sentiments and that’s wonderful. And as far as Mr. Bletzer and the moderator, they can sort that out amongst themselves. So, thanks very much.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Harry and then Alan and then Mr. Brewster.

Harry Helm:

I’d like to hear if Mr. Hartman has received any additional information on this.

Lee Hartman:

Well, yes, I have. I just talked to Mark Rich from town council just a few things. So, first my own personal observation, town meeting is five to six weeks away. We’re all hopeful that COVID gets better, but it could get worse. So, I don’t want to just simply make an assumption by April things are better. You just never know, so just keep that in mind. We have spent a lot of time over the weekend going through with town council, with the moderator about the hybrid option and council is very clear, the law does not allow for a hybrid. And so, again, Mark Rich and town council has made it very clear that we can’t do a hybrid. It’s either in-person or it’s via remote. And then finally, he’s made it clear to that without the board’s consensus for a virtual meeting then it will have to be live. So, you need to consent by the state acts to allow it to go virtual for it to be virtual. So, tonight, if you decide to rescind your previous vote of allowing it to go virtual then it would have to be live. Just caution you that we just really don’t know what–none of us can predict where COVID heads and hybrid is not an option.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Costello?

Alan Costello:

Yeah, I apologize. Just out of clarification, last night’s COPC meeting, there was a very active spirited discussion. The moderator was present, the Chairperson Kathryn Holmes and the Vice-Chair Mike Landers were unable to attend your meeting here tonight. They asked both Wrestling or Mr. Brewster and myself to represent the COPC. There were at least half a dozen people that were very vocal about this, engaged with the moderator in a respectful way, had a very good discussion and I, with the exception of Mr. Hutchinson did not hear anyone in the descending characterization. So, this is the sentiments of COPC. I asked for a vote so that I could have a vote in my pocket and tell you about the vote today. It was decided a vote wasn’t needed, but I just want to address that Mr. Hutchinson’s comments. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you. Wrestling?

Wrestling Brewster:

Yeah. I just want to clarify that Alan and I both have been deeply concerned about town meeting for a number of years since we’ve gone virtual. COPC as a committee has spoken to the moderator about working towards an in-person meeting. So, what I’m trying to say is we’ve tried to work within the system, and we’ve tried to communicate with the moderator and frankly, the moderator keeps saying that he has the authority. And it’s to me personally–speaking personally, I’m troubled by that.

0:55:01

Wrestling Brewster:

I’m troubled that the moderator has got a lot of authority here, and town meeting is supposed to be the surest form of democracy and if we’re not someone in charge of our destiny then it’s kind of not having the surest form of democracy. I totally understand you know that you guys have taken a vote. I understand that some people do not feel safe in town meeting. At some point in time, we’ve got to get back to an in-person. I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and when I signed up for town meeting, I did it because I can commit to that. I can commit to coming to town meeting twice a year. I’m not a selectman because I’m a working stiff. I can’t commit to what you guys commit to. I would say to people who are hesitant to go back to in-person, you signed up to be a town meeting member, and I understand we’re in difficult times and I totally appreciate this board’s, what you’ve been doing and what you’ve been thinking about tonight. I just ask you to continually think about this and have an important part of your discussion. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Any other comments from the board or questions? Anyone else wishing to speak, Chris?

Chris Badot:

No, sir.

Dick Quintal:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I just kind of want to comment on what’s going on in general. I’m concerned that tonight voting on administrative note number five presents a number of problems. First of all, we’re not a full board. So, what happens if we vote on five, and it’s two in favor, two against. What happens to administrative note number five? Does it just go into oblivion? Also, I voted in opposition to a virtual town meeting a few weeks ago and I’m confused about how I should vote on this, quite frankly. I need to think about this. Whether I vote no, and then risk having the inability of town meeting members to actually control their own destiny, which I feel they’re kind of asking for at the Saturday meeting because if I vote no to this, which I had previously voted no on conducting a virtual town meeting. If I vote no on this, and we don’t pass this then the town meeting member, we basically overridden a process that would take place at town meeting where the town meeting representatives would once again control their own destiny. So, I’m really torn on this. I really have to think about it and I really would ask that we bring this back to next week’s town meeting when we are next week’s board of selectmen where we’ll have a full board, and we can really spend a week–I can spend a week thinking on what my position is going to be because I feel like I’m straddling offense here.

Lee Hartman:

Chairman Quintal, if I could?

Dick Quintal:

Sure. Go ahead, Lee.

Lee Hartman:

Yeah. We do have time to do that and then just on a 2-2 vote that would mean that that motion did not pass and your original vote with just the virtual vote would stand. So, if there was a 2-2 vote today then that would mean that the original vote that you had that said we can do it virtually only with no option for in-person, that would stand on a 2-2 vote, but we do have time to put this on for next week.

Harry Helm:

And just real quick, I’m additionally concerned, I forgot this part, that the request of the members of the COPC that we move to rescind our vote of a couple of weeks ago is in the same territory. We have Mr. Bletzer and I who voted on the last time and Chairman Quintal and Mr. Flaherty who voted yes are currently present. So, once again, we have the difficulty this week since we are down a member.

1:00:00

Lee Hartman:

If I could also add, I think going to next week would give the town moderator an opportunity to weigh in too. So, there might be other people interested in weighing in on this.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Mr. Brewster?

Wrestling Brewster:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a note, my concern is I like to have my ducks on a row before a meeting and I know you all before you come to meetings, you pretty much know what’s going on. The cost of having a town meeting that’s going to last a half an hour is pretty big and all I ask is that this board take into consideration that there is an appetite through the poll to have an in-person meeting. And I think to me, it’s hard because we had to come to you. We’ve been trying to talk to the moderator about this for a long time and Harry, I know it’s a hard decision, but that’s why we pay you the big bucks.

Dick Quintal:

Yes, Harry?

Harry Helm:

Yeah, I would just like to respond to Mr. Brewster. It’s not about a hard decision, it’s about deadlock decisions. And what that means if we go forward tonight without a full board, we run the risk on anything we do of being a deadlock 2-2. I’m not going to assume how anybody’s going to vote, but just based on the last vote we took, you’ve got two of the members who voted yes, and you have two of the members who voted no. And if we deadlock on these things, they go into oblivion and then nothing can happen and the virtual rolls on. That’s my point, Mr. Brewster.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

I don’t think that’s procedurally how it would work but someone else might be able to speak to that. I think it doesn’t pass and then if we ever brought it back again, you can always re-vote, re-motion something if something doesn’t pass. It certainly wouldn’t go into oblivion. I think my thought on this administrative note is that if this is moving forward one way or the other, it ends up where there’s a virtual town meeting and the town meeting does not vote to have a virtual town meeting then now town meeting has gone into oblivion. So, there wouldn’t be a future date set for the in-person version of the town meeting if we don’t approve this. So, I see this as a way to say if town meeting chooses its own destiny at town meeting and wants to have in-person, this is the safeguard to make sure that town meeting town business does happen in two weeks’ time after that as close to the date as reasonably possible. So, I think there are two separate things going on. There is this which protects town meeting from not happening at all and then there’s if the board wants to reconsider taking virtual totally off the table, that’s a different track that is separate from this administrative note. This is my read on it.

Dick Quintal:

Yeah, I’m just going to comment on it because I’ve been listening to all, and I’ve also be seeing the I guess you call it the chat going back and forth at the bottom of my screen here. I’ll be upfront with you; I don’t need another week to decide this. I think by moving this article as written tonight, administrative note number five, it gives the option for both. Town meeting can predict their own future or how you want to say it, control of destiny, that’s exactly what it does. For me, to sit here and tell any member of this community that they’re going to have no option, and they would attend a meeting that we have some–I had one gentleman say I think he was 89, forgive me, he might have been an 85. We have 221 people that have died from COVID in this community alone. Another nine that have new cases today. So, it’s not gone. I heard on the news this morning that there might be another variant coming up and it’s going to be worse than the ones we’ve already seen. Do I know that? No, I’m not a doctor neither is anybody on the screen that I know of. So, I’ll tell you, you can give me another week, you can give me another 14 days, I am not going to vote to put anybody at jeopardy in anybody’s life.

1:05:05

Dick Quintal:

So, if somebody on this board feels that they got it all figured out and they don’t mind doing that, bless you, because I don’t feel that way. I had COVID. I was hospitalized. I had a grandson and seven years old that’s still not right to this day and another 11 in another family. So, I know town employees that have had their vaccinations that can’t even go back to work. So, this is a very complex situation, and I’m going to take you down history lane when the committee of precinct chairs came along going back 15-18 years ago. It was Bill Abbott who was in front of the board at the time, and it was to advise the town meeting members in each precinct and understand the articles better. But lately, I have seen this thing with this precinct chairs that they’re the ones that want more and more power. Well, I’m here to tell you politely and respectfully is that the fights between you and the moderator by giving you this option five tonight I feel gives you both options. So, that’s it for me and I don’t know if you’re supposed to be emailing each other and doing polls and texts in the emails if that’s even legal.

Alan Costello:

It is.

Dick Quintal:

It’s not on our board, so it must be different set of rules for you guys. So, I mean, I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t want to be–I am not going to be putting the spot for putting anybody in jeopardy and that’s not going to change. Mr. Costello?

Alan Costello:

Mr. Chairman, per your logic, if you vote for this tonight, you’re leaving it a possibility that we’re going to have an in-person meeting two weeks later. Based on what you just said, what’s going to change in two weeks to make you more comfortable to let people into the room?

Dick Quintal:

Because by that you’re making your own decision. I’m not making it for other people. That’s the difference.

Alan Costello:

Fair enough. May I also ask one further question of the acting town manager. What really came out of the COPC last night is we really want to pursue the hybrid style meeting for this upcoming Spring Town Meeting and probably for the future. It doesn’t always have to be COVID related. It could be weather related, it could be illness to a town meeting member. We would like to have the hybrid option available to us. Can we through the town manager, can we have some time with town council? I spent the afternoon today reading the legislation that just was passed, and it’s quite honestly, it’s silent on a hybrid option. So, it doesn’t necessarily say you cannot have a hybrid. The moderator pushed it last night until he was pushed by several members of the COPC and his explanation was flimsy at best. I’d like to see if we could have an audience with town council and get to the bottom of the hybrid format once and for all.

Lee Hartman:

I would defer to the Selectmen. I’ve talked to council, and they said it’s not an option. So, I’m not sure what else you would get from them. That’s something we asked them when we went through it. So, I mean if that’s not good enough, it’s up to the Selectmen if you wanted council to appear at the Committee of Precinct Chairs.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. DiNardo, did you want to speak?

Al DiNardo:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Al DiNardo. I’m town meeting member from Precinct 12. Let me just try to shed a little light on this, why there’s a lot of confusion. Normally, when a town meeting is called, the warrant would come before the Select Board, and you would just call it as an administrative task. It wouldn’t be any problem with that, and I’m sure you’ll do that with this as well. Because of this emergency order which is what this is and this happened in August, it gave the authority. They had to put somebody in charge, the moderator in charge under this emergency situation. And like my colleague, Mr. Costello said, I’ve read the legislation, and, yeah it does not–I’m surprised that they do not dovetail. It’s either a or b. That’s the problem here. And today, I emailed the committee chair handling this legislation and I expressed to them kindly that they need to look at dovetailing the possibility of remote access in there probably for now and in the future.

1:10:15

Al DiNardo:

And I think that’s probably what’s going to happen. So, there is a chance they could maybe act on this. I would suggest our delegation work on this. I know the moderator had mentioned it last night, but our town charter is clear, town meeting rules and regs on how it will operate. So, I guess with respect to that, town meeting needs to just to decide that, but it triggers these many weeks. That’s the problem here. Hopefully, we can get a change in the legislation to cut to the chase. We need a change in this legislation because there are many people like myself that are uncomfortable in being in-person and that should be for people wanting to be sworn into office. And I think like I wrote in today’s letter, that would help older people that can’t get out of the house to be involved in government, it would help younger people. We’re trying to get people in their 20s and 30s and 40s to be involved in local government. If they could access remotely, if they’re away on business, I think this would be a good way to promote younger people being involved in town government knowing they can do it remotely. So, thank you for your time, Mr. moderator–I mean, Mr. Chairman.

Dick Quintal:

Anyone else wishing to speak, comment? Mr. Brewster?

Wrestling Brewster:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for allowing us this time. This is an important discussion and I think for me, I need to make sure that the selectmen understand that COPC is a representative of town meeting, and we’re just trying to have our voices heard. And I appreciate you listening to us, but I really think this was a really good discussion and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you.

Alan Costello:

Thank you as well.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you, Mr. Costello. Bringing it back to the board. So, you want to look at five again next week, gentlemen? Maybe we’ll put it on as a docket item, Lee so we can get the public input anybody that wants to speak.

Lee Hartman:

We’ll allot six hours for it too, so we’ll be safe.

Dick Quintal:

There you go. Put it at the end, please. Well, just so we don’t hold up the whole meeting. That’s what I mean. All right.

Charlie Bletzer:

That won’t be enough.

Dick Quintal:

Thank you everyone. So, moving along with our list. Maybe the board will decide if they’re ready to go back live by next week also. I know if town meeting is good for them maybe we should get going. I’m in. So, let me know, gentlemen.

Committee liaison updates? Designee updates? Old business? Letters? New business? Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Well, just what you brought up there about us going live maybe it’s for when we have our full board here when Betty’s back, but I agree. I’d be in favor of us going back in-person. I know you know there’s talk about having the virtual option for people who want to participate, but to have us in the room I think is important too. However, if we have to do that by bringing forth an agenda item whichever way I’m in favor of doing that as well.

Lee Hartman:

And we’ll just have to see what the Board of Health does tomorrow night too.

Dick Quintal:

You’re right. Well, that was in the back of my head too, but I didn’t want to say it. Okay. Is that it? Anything else under new business? Harry?

Harry Helm:

Just a real quick question on Patrick’s last point and Lee’s past point about the Board of Health. If the Board of Health does rescind its in-person meeting mandate, would we be able to go to in-person next Tuesday? We don’t have to vote on that, do we?

Lee Hartman:

So, well, I think if the chair could set it, I would just have to ask Chris about any advertisings. So, if you have a public hearing advertise that it’s going to be. Well, if it’s a hybrid, we should still be okay. Chris?

1:15:11

Chris Badot:

So, I would be more concerned about PACTV and in-person being ready. They need time to get set up, so I can certainly chat with them about that.

Lee Hartman:

So, if you’re okay with deferring to the chat, I don’t know if the chair wants to make that call on his own. So, we could we could do it, if you wanted to.

Dick Quintal:

Well, while we’re doing it, we need to figure out what night, if we’re going to be on the same night. I mean, I know we’ve been talking about it, but it’s all going to come together. We needed some parts lost I knew for the for the courtroom. I don’t know if they’re in yet and Pac has to be a part of it because they have to have the people. I mean, we need to have a serious discussion of when we are going. We’re getting closer so that’s all. Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

The following week would be easier for me. My chase would be a lot easier if we could do that.

Dick Quintal:

Okay. Why don’t we listen to what Lee has to report back next week, see what we got for equipment, what Pac says and then we’ll go from there. I don’t know. Do we have to have a different night, Lee or we’re going to stay with Tuesday live with planning board meeting the same night or is that good?

Lee Hartman:

So, again, as I’ve said way too much on everybody’s plate right now, as soon as March 14th rolls on and Derek takes over, I’ll be talking to my board logistically about if they’re willing to move to Wednesday night. I just again right now there’s just too much on the plate to pick one more thing to add to it. So, my goal is as soon as things quiet down then yeah, I’ll be talking to them and see if we can get a consensus for them to move to Wednesday night.

Dick Quintal:

Okay.

Lee Hartman:

And I’ll give them the option that they can either meet in the shell up room on Tuesday night or the courtroom on Wednesday but it would be their choice.

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I can’t speak for the board, but I mean, I’d be willing to do Wednesday night too. I mean, that doesn’t–

Lee Hartman:

And that’s up to this board.

Dick Quintal:

It keeps peace. I mean, that doesn’t matter to me. I don’t know how the rest of the board feels, so. Does the board feel any different about either night?

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s fine for me.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Well, I have a problem with us moving to Wednesday. We would be moving on top of the Advisory and Finance Committee and during the run-ups to town meeting. I know that a lot of the town meeting representatives and the residents depend on being able to watch the Finance Committee deliberations as they make their determinations about the various warrant articles. And there is one thing about knowing that on a Wednesday night that you’re available as opposed to they rerun them on Saturdays and Sundays, and that’s pretty tough for people. And I mean–

Dick Quintal:

There was also a Monday night also.

Harry Helm:

Well, that’s–

Dick Quintal:

I mean, I wouldn’t do it during this season anyway, but I mean, I wouldn’t cut them off, no.

Harry Helm:

Okay, cool. Just as long–

Dick Quintal:

Just looking for options out there, maybe moving forward, maybe they’d be willing to use a Monday night and everything will just work out but–you listening, Derek? So, we can get this figured out and get to work.

Harry Helm:

Okay.

Dick Quintal:

Peacefully. Okay. Now, we’re going to go back in executive session that we had earlier because we did not finish. So, I’m going to read the order one more time for somebody that may not have heard it.

The Select Board will hold an Executive Session pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A Section 21, Paragraph 3, to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining, negotiation and the chair so declares. Following Executive Session, the board will not be returning. That’s okay, Lee? We don’t have to, right? I mean–okay.

Lee Hartman:

Yes. Yup.

Dick Quintal:

All right. Do I have a motion on an executive session?

Charlie Bletzer:

I make the motion.

Harry Helm:

Motion.

Dick Quintal:

Motion. And second?

Patrick Flaherty:

Second.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Bletzer?

Charlie Bletzer:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

Yes.

Dick Quintal:

Mr. Flaherty?

Patrick Flaherty:

Yes.

1:19:57

Dick Quintal:

And myself, yes. Thank you for watching. Have a good week. We’ll see you next week.