Heat. Heat. Good evening, ladies, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the April 21st, 2026 meeting of the Town of Cadam Select Board. Please note, this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or
tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI notetaking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025
extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Select Board is being conducted in
person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone
number 158-945-4410 conference ID 203-386491 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072,
despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. First order of businesses to ensure a quorum. Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dykens present. >> Mr. Meadows >> present. >> Mr. Smith
>> present. >> The chair is present. >> The board will initially go into executive session this evening. Um, we got a last minute request to move this to later in the meeting, but I cannot honor that because we have multiple parties who are scheduled to be in
attendance at the executive session. So, let me read the executive session item first and then I'm going to offer a motion. This is going to take a while because there it's a long item. Um, first item on the agenda is is is an executive session under Massachusetts
General Laws, chapter 38, section 21, parenthesis A, parenthesis 6, to discuss strategy with respect to the potential acquisition of easements and land to facilitate access to the following Chattam Town Landings/water access sites. If the chair so declares
that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the body with return to open session. One, Andrew Hardings Lane. Two, Barn Hill. Three, Battlefield. Four, Ber's Lane. Five, Bridge Street, six Breeze Street East. Seven, Champlain
Road. 8, Claflin. Nine, Cutch Pinnacut. 10, Cowyard. 11, Crows Pond. 12, Elephamitz Lane. 13 Fish Pier 14 Goose Pond 15 Hallway Street 16 Little Pond 17 Mil Creek 18 Mistover Lane 19 Morris
Island Dyke 20 Old Mill Boatyard 21 Oyster Pond Furlong 22 Point Fortune 23 Ridgeville Road South 24 Writers Cove 25 Scatterie 26 Sears Road 27 Stage Harbor
Point 28 Strong Island 29 Taylor's Pond 30 Vineyard 31 W Street East, 32 Water Street West, 33 White Pond. I'm going to now offer a motion. I'm going to have to repeat all this to go into executive session. um that the board go into exe
executive session under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 38 section 21 par six paren parenthesis A parenthesis 6 to discuss strategy with respect to the potential acquisition of easements and land to facilitate access to the following Chattam town Landing/water
access sites if the chair so dis so declares that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the body with return to open session one Andrew Hardings Lane two Barnhill Three Battlefield four beers Lane five Bridge Street six bridge
street east seven Champlain Road eight Claflin nine Cut Pinnickut 10 Coward 11 Crows Pond 12 Elephamitz Lane 13 Fish Pier 14 Goose Pond 15 Hallway Street 16 Little Mill Pond 17 Mil Creek 18
Mistover Lane 19 Morris Island Dyke 20 Old Mill Boatyard 21 Oyster Pond Furlong 22 Point Fortune 23 Ridgeville Road South 24 Ryder's Cove 25 Scatterie 26 Sears Pond 27 Stage Harbor Point 28
Strong Island 29 Taylor's Pond 30 Vineyard 31 W Street East 31 W Street West 33 White Pond Do I have a second >> second >> I will call Thank Davis >> I >> Mr. Dykins Mr. Matters Hi
>> Mr. Smith. >> I chair votes. The board will now go into executive session. I can't guarantee when we're going to come out, but I I'm going to try to keep this under an hour if possible. So, I would ask those who are not invited into the
executive session if you would kindly leave the room. We will close the doors and um we will get back to you as soon as we can. Are we back? Okay, we're back in public session. Um,
proceeding with the regular agenda. We don't have any minutes this evening. Um, next item is public announcements and it It's on. >> Okay, we're back in public session proceeding with the uh items on the
regular agenda. We do not have a any sets of minutes for for approval tonight. The next item is public announcements and agenda item requests. Uh I have first one um myself uh to note that the deadline to register to vote if
you are not already registered for the annual town meeting and the annual town election is May 1st, 2026 by 5:00 p.m. uh with the town clerk. Um I'll ask uh our other members of the board if you
have any public announcements or agenda item requests. >> No. Um, and then I have Steven Buckley. >> Stephen. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, yes, Steve Buckley. And I would request uh
and this may come up for discussion later. Um, I would like to request that the committee handbook, which was last revised in 2016, uh, 10 years ago to this month actually,
that it be, uh, revised and that the, uh, rather than have a single select board member be the author of that revision, uh, like it was last time, that there be an ad hoc or not, I guess,
a task force or task group be involved in revising and updating it. So, uh, and like I said, this might come up for discussion, but I thought I'd put it forth now as an agenda item request. Thank you very much. >> Okay, thank you, Stephen. Uh, I know one
of our colleagues up here is is looking at that right now, but we'll we'll uh add that to the list. Anybody else uh with an agenda item request um or public announcement? I don't somebody is and their hand is not up so I guess
that's not the case. Greg Burman u you have our director of natural resources you have an item. >> Yes, thank you. We just wanted to let people know about the upcoming health fair. It'll be held in Harwitch but it's a regional event. We encourage people from Chattam to attend. Uh this flyer is
also available on our town website under health division. And if you're looking for transportation, please contact the COA at 508-945-5190 uh by this Thursday in order to reserve a seat on the bus. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Greg. Okay, I think that completes that item. Uh we have no public hearing tonight. There's no consent agenda. Uh the next item are comments on public comments on the business agenda. You can make them now or you can make them during uh the um
individual items. I don't see anybody who wants to speak right now. So the we'll proceed with the regular business agenda. The first item is fisherman storage area discussion of license status and direction on future use alternatives if warranted. And Jill, I
guess I'll turn to you initially. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so staff tonight wanted to present the board uh with either receiving direction on status quo or if there's anything else the board would like to consider for the fisherman storage area. The current
licenses expire in March 2027. Staff and Jason I'm sorry Greg and Jason prepared a staff report for your review and if you have any further questions about license versus lease our town council Jay Talerman is here to answer any questions. Okay,
turning to you guys, Greg and um Jason. >> Yes, thank you. Greg Berman, your director of natural resources. With me is Jason Holm, your harbor master. Um so for the past two years, the fisherman storage area, I believe, has been working the way it was intended. Uh we
have three Town of Chattam residents uh using that for storage. We have done periodic inspections certainly before every license renewal period and they have been abiding by the license. Um we are currently within the last year of
the three-year license that we set up. Uh at this point we would like some guidance from the select board with regard to moving forward whether we just keep doing our three-year licenses. Um it probably shouldn't be longer than that. Licenses are supposed to be
relatively short. um as you know our our license versus lease uh guidance was given. But then also you know if one of these three decides not to renew or uh does something against the license what
would be the process for uh bringing somebody new into the uh fisherman storage area? It's our initial thought that it would potentially be a lottery system for other Chattam residents who are commercial fishermen. uh but wanted to give the select board the opportunity
to provide guidance. >> Thank you. >> What are the uh current uh eligibility criteria that's referenced in your memo? uh that was provided about three years ago by the select board to do the three-year license to town of Chadam
residents who are commercial fishermen who also were currently um I believe licensed was the right word but they were they had space at the airport uh facility and wastewater treatment facility after that. >> So they have permits at the old airport stores.
>> So what what do they have to show now to be eligible to participate? So right now we're we're still in that initial period where they had potentially three years under that. Okay. >> So it was just the three who had that
license last time. >> And um the current lenses are interested in staying. >> Um if you'd like to uh have public comment, I I think a lot of them could share that information this evening, but we have heard that they are interested.
>> We can do that momentarily, but I'll turn to Jason. Did you have anything you wanted to add? >> State all three are in attendance tonight and all three have indicated their desire to continue. It's just >> they'd like to continue. >> Yes, >> Corey. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I mean, this goes back to um we had the
fisherman storage area that was on the airport property, you know, and um I I'm not sure exactly how many individuals used the property at that time, but some had interest in staying, some were didn't interest. We had a bit of a cleanup issue. We worked all that out.
We identified a a relatively smaller group of individuals who wanted to stay. I don't know why it's buzzing. Um and use a fisherman storage area. Uh we identified a location. Uh we went to town meeting. We got funding. We built
it. Um the tenants have been good tenants. Um I think personally status quo makes a lot of sense. Um I think it's it is our uh it would be our duty to understand if the the fee that we're charging is is fair or do we need a small incremental increase you know
just to you know be fair market um I I think I looked at this as we were trying to accommodate those who were getting displaced from the other other location um it kind of pro um us expanding into I mean if we want
to create more land and try to, you know, get six, eight, 10 individuals to rent a fisherman storage area. That's that's one thing. I I didn't think that was our intention. Um, so I'm not advocating that we try to get a bigger area. Um, but as long as those individuals that we tried to help who
were displaced from the old fisherman storage area are in good standing, um, I would be inclined to go status quo. Um, if some of if someone were to leave, I I guess probably the only reasonable, you know, process would be a lottery. Um, I don't know. Maybe step one would be to
see if any of the existing tenants wanted more space first because we kind of kind of didn't have a set dimensional for each person. We're like, "Okay, how much do you want? How much do you want?" And that's that's where we ended up with three. We kind of moved the blocks around a little bit. So, uh, there was
some flexibility in that. So, um, I'm looking to kind of keep this simple. If it's working, why try to break, you know, why not why try to fix it? Um, so if there's an interest in their good standing, let's keep it going for another three years. >> Do lottery or weight list, too. I mean,
it's it's a couple different mechanisms that we could do. I just often get asked, and I'm sure Greg does, too, just how do we how do we get a spot there? And, you know, based off the last guidance, it wasn't really anything past that first license agreement. So, we're kind of left not exactly knowing what
policy is kind of covering that. >> Do you have others that other people that want to >> fed interest? Yes. Yeah, Shireen, you were next. >> Yes, I was. Um, you know, if the stewardship of the of the area has been successful and and
these three businesses have shown that um they're uh in good standing with the town and you know, this is all part of their business plan and to disrupt or change any policy midstream doesn't seem to be as you know, fair or equitable and I would I would want to see the status
quo stay the way it is. One of the things though I think that's really important that we have to look at is you know again this is um you know there's not a lot of area uh in Chadam that's available for working waterfront storage. Um our our industrial parks are
just they're crammed in and it seems to be a huge demand in those areas for um boat storage for the marinas. I know that up in Commerce Park, uh, one of the marinas is just buying up every available site they can, and there's big
money in storing boats anyway. Um, but I would I would look at it in and look at this in a in just further is to, you know, um, you know, make the make the license renewable based based on um,
good standing. Um and but also maybe look at the idea of putting this out to the working waterfront committee to say um what or or or some committee that would look at it maybe economic development I don't know or maybe all um or even the select board just just to
look at it and say um what is the need base what's the demand do we have area do we have a policy in place a management plan and if does that and plan include expansion and what would that expansion look like at least looking forward for ward thinking in in saying you know that that there's a
there's a need um if you need to justify the need that would be maybe economic development looking at the needs-based part of that but I I think we should be um you know I passionate about working waterfront uh supporting the commercial fishing industry as a community that has
a long history >> so I I did just want to mention that I I would uh request a little bit of hesitance before talk of expansion. We the town has a lot of storage needs also specifically for
Harbor Master and Shellfish. We've been exploring a lot of areas for that. Um we've even been exploring the area immediately south of the fisherman storage area. Um I I'd like to think you know immediate town storage needs should
be assessed before expansion of fisherman storage area. And you know, once we get that assessment in place, I I think that's a very reasonable idea. Just want to make sure we don't give up something that we're going to need later. >> I cannot not disagree with you. I I do
understand the need and we've talked about that in several executive sessions. So, looking at at properties and whatnot. I just think that if there is maybe there's a duality here that you're looking at an abuing property with a common interest of storage and
and facilities and and you know is there opportunity and I'm I'm not demanding that there be an expansion to just keep the keep it open to expansion and then you know but I would not want to disrupt the existing folks that have been there
uh simply for the fact that they hung in at the um the treatment plant for as leases or or potential leases um in hopes of getting this space. But I also know that there is people that have been looking for for area as well. >> Jeff and then Stuart.
>> No, I I I think by by I think it it's not broke. You don't fix it. I think these these folks have successfully uh you know stored their stuff there, their fishing gear there. 100% uh in favor of supporting the local fishing industry as you as you folks well know. Um the only
question I really had Dean asked but is there a waiting list now? Are there are there is there distinct uh you know or deep interest in in in more storage facilities or not by the commercial fisherman? >> So I'll let Jason answer too. I' I've had one or two people reach out and we
have not started a waiting list because we haven't really advertised that we would. We don't want people to >> you know kind of get first in line for asking. uh that's where we're thinking of a lottery system or if we want a waiting list we can announce when that would start >> there's there's no policy governing what
we would charge for a wait list either so it you know or would we charge so uh there's been a little bit of interest uh going back to when this came about and please correct me if I'm wrong from your own memories but um these three were the ones that really the Chattam residents
left that really came to the meetings pursued this um and at the time there was a ton of surveys that was sent out on this and they were the the last three standing being a Chattam resident. So, at least three years ago, the need was these folks here and if there was other need and people just didn't speak up.
Um, since then, you know, we have a few here and there. I think across the fleet, you would hear that people needed it. It's just a matter of will they speak up or will they advocate for that need a little bit more. Um, and to date, I don't I don't know what that survey would look like at this time. But I know back then, at least from my own memory,
that these were the three that that put in the work and came uh advocating for more space. >> Yeah. I have no intention to upset the apple card. I mean, I think these guys are kind of grandfathered, if you will, and they've done a good job. Um, but the only thing that would shake or would change my my opinion or my thoughts on
it at least would be if there was really strong interest by others and then there's there's maybe penup demand, but there isn't. So, doesn't sound like there is. So, >> so, you know, I I would I would keep the status quo. >> Sure. >> Um, yeah, I I agree. I I mean we built
we built this place and we ought to continue to use it and these are the these these folks are the ones who were last standing if you put it Jason correctly um and pursued it. How much property is up there? You know I'm I'm kind of recalling back about the uh maps
that expanded the um the leeching fields if you will at the treatment plant. And um but it seemed to me that there was additional property that we could look at um for uh fisherman storage of um for
residential commercial fisherman as Shireen points out correctly. You know, we're real estate is ridiculous and um this is really going to become quite critical if it isn't already. Uh these three are um you know they're good
tenants. I think we just continue but in the I think we should look at what our options are there for the future and then maybe you could come back um after you chat with the committee about um you know how would we go about uh for the next step whether it be a waiting list
or a waiting list and then a lottery and um I mean we're very familiar with waiting lists so we know how they work and it gives people like these tenants some sort of security that they're going to continue there unless the rules are
violated. It's sort of like our other waiting list. You know, you you you know, it's public property, but as long as you behave and treat it well, you get to go back so you can do business plans into the future and uh and and have that opportunity. So, something to think about.
>> So, are you talking about like the area right behind where it is or that hollowed out area over by the solar field? >> I was actually talking about both. Um because that hollowed out area is was an option that Bob and I talked about at great length. Um and there's some area
there. Um so seems to me that there's there is some room. How many square feet are each one of were these 5,000 square feet each? >> There's two I think two different dimensions. I think two are one size and there's one odd dimension on the end. >> Okay. All right. Well, in any event, um,
and these are these are adequate. So, you know, that gives you a footprint for the future if if you if we can when we have additional property up there, I think we ought to be uh utilizing because this is uh really a critical issue, not only Chattam, but everywhere on the Cape.
>> Yeah. So, I mean, when we came up with the original licenses, um, one person wanted a little less, one person wanted a little more, so we could just move the blocks. So it's not the exact same square footage for each one. >> And then as far as expansion that that hollow certainly worth looking at. We
did talk to DPW director and some of the wastewater treatment facility folks. There are a couple of you know not to be touched areas just in case of expansion in the future but might be some other areas. >> Yeah. Yeah. Great. I mean I think worth it's not a big effort and I think we have a lot of the information from the
previous look see for some years ago. >> Corey did you have something else? >> Ju just to follow up on Jason's comment. Yeah, the current individuals who are using the facility have have been with this project since step one. I mean, they were being displaced from the original fisherman storage area. They
rode it through the treatment plant. Um, they waited out town meeting the construction of the FSA. Um, you know, they've been good tenants. So, I have no appetite to disrupt them. I mean, it's it wouldn't be fair. I mean, they've been there since one and and as long as
they're in good standing, I'm fine. So, I I agree. I I I I I'm inclined to support the renewal of the lease leases for three years, and that gives us an opportunity to think about what might happen after the three years. It gives everybody a chance to plan, but I wanted
to ask town council. So, we have three-year licenses in place now. I can't recall whether you were the one that drafted them or whether Mr. Costello did, but are we um can we just renew them with these three individuals?
Um, I I think so. I mean, I I'm not personally familiar with them and I'm not I don't think we drafted them. If we did, it would have been at the start of our newest tenure. >> I I hesitate to call it like a renewal per se, but yes, it has the effect of
that and they remain kind of revocable and terminable. So, as long as we stick to the rules in and around licenses, >> yeah. >> Um, then I think there's no issue with issuing another one. We don't run into the same durational aspects that we
would with respect to a lease. Obviously, if it's a term of years, >> that's for convenience purposes because they are revocable instruments, but still it's helpful certainly for the the three users of the license, the three lenses. >> Yeah. I just want to be able the town to
be able to u extend it for three years with these these particular licences and not have to invite others to >> and we could we could help with memorializing that in in whatever writing we have to once we had the >> the underlying info. It's shouldn't be that particularly difficult.
>> I want to ask if any of the three licences wanted to say anything. You're welcome to come up to the podium. I think there's a sentiment at the we can take a vote too if we need to. Sentiment that we'd like to renew your licenses. I know we have one public comment which I'll get to in a moment, but would any
of you like to say anything? >> And I had one other question. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, they're they're appreciative of this. Uh Stuart, >> so three years. Um I'm I wasn't on the board at the time obviously so I don't
know if that's a limit but um having uh having to do business plans you know every business does them and this one this business is particularly you know >> yeah it's got a lot of variables to it. Um are we able to make it longer? You
know, I'm I'm thinking back to I think we do leases sometimes for five years and you know, three years. >> Well, leases are a little bit different because we do have like actual limits on things that we have to consider. >> Um, here sometimes what we do with
licenses, we don't put in any term because the term is defined by the the town's, you know, comfort level with those. So that's why I said a few moments ago, we're putting a term on it so that they have some peace of mind as to what it's
going to be when the next time that we consider this issue, but ultimately the the term I don't want to >> yeah, >> you know, it can be somewhat funible. So sometimes when we do licenses for things, they're more or less open-ended. Here I think the term makes a certain
amount of sense because it allows us to evaluate things like is it working? Do we have to re-evaluate whether or not we have to put them out for other folks? Do we need to expand? So, I think it's it's more convenience purposes. Technically, it could be more open-ended. Um,
>> I I mean, I was thinking and and I'll leave, you know, I'm not sure it should be open-ended because we want to give them some degree of u security, if you will. But, um, could we go to five years or is there a limit, a statute that says we >> No, there there really isn't. What what
I might recommend Stuart is that instead of doing that is that in the the renewal thing we'll be considered we'll add something and you know we'll be considered for renewal upon the you know the the end of the three years >> you know favorable we could even add
kind of a favorable disposition or something like that but plans our plans for our properties change so >> it's just a matter of both sides keeping it open when we do want to stay away from uh an instance where these become kind of exclusive use things and someone might make an
allegation someone else who may want the space saying, "Well, that looks an awful lot like a lease to me." >> Yeah. >> So that this way it retains enough of that municipal control so that we can stay away from that kind of um label on this.
>> Yeah. I think some of that terminology would be helpful that you're chatting. >> Yeah. and we can bake that into this renewal once we get the backup info and that gives peace of mind that we're looking at this maybe a another renewal. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Um Stephen Buckley, you have your hand
up. Did you have a comment on this item? >> No. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chair. My mistake. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't see any other public comments. I bring it back to the board. Um, does the board want to see um I I think
I would entertain a motion to um authorize uh and direct the the rellicensing of these to these three three licences um for a period of three years subject to the review of the town council. Do you want to see that
document come back to us before we >> No, I I mean I'm I'm comfortable as I think Jay's getting the gist of what we're chatting about. as long as it has a favorable renewal process that makes it easier than >> you know >> we could certainly do that. Again we have to with licenses we always have to
keep our options open >> but yeah I think that we we can certainly give the kind of a good feeling uh that this is uh going to be maintained and on into the future unless there's an important change of circumstances. >> Great.
>> Does someone want to offer a >> So move. >> Okay. Seconded the motion. Do we have the motion, Kathy? The motion is to extend this for three years with the current licences subject to the town council's uh review and revision of the lease accordingly. Uh is there a second?
>> I second it. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. Hi. Your votes. I thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next is a discussion of Haritch Select Board letters dated January 12th, 26 and
April 14th, 26. So, um, I just want to start by saying that in January, the select board received a communication from the town of Haritch select board relative to uh the Monoy Regional School
District assessment formula. uh and they had done some studies in Harwitch and asked us to take a look at this in anticipation of uh what at the time um was thought to be an upcoming joint meeting. Um we all received it. I looked
at them at the time. I think I made some public comment about them at a budget session and um uh we did not follow up. Um, and I I think the reason is that we were not aware I certainly was not aware of any particular meeting being
scheduled. I assumed when this came in that this was going to be a meeting convened by the district itself, by the school committee, but um that obviously did not happen. So, um, more recently on the 14th, um, of April, there was a, um,
a second a follow-up letter from from the town of Harowitch from the select board u reiterating their desire for for a joint meeting to discuss the assessment formula and the materials that they had
presented. and I responded uh with a an email to the chair Don Howell of the Howard Select Board uh that uh we would place this on our agenda tonight for discussion. Uh and uh I know that our town manager and the new town
administrator in Howitch have had conversations about scheduling a meeting and and the venue for a meeting. I have spoken with um Don Howell uh as recently as this morning as well as um last week.
Uh and um um I told him what we were doing tonight and um I would just like to say I um I I have a good relationship chair to chair with with Chair Howell. Uh we neither of us is likely to be in the
chair. Uh I certainly am not going to be in the chair after May 14th. Um but um uh I I view this as a cooperative and collaborative process. I think uh he does too. I know he does too. Um uh we
are jointly invested in this enterprise in stewarding the Monterey Regional School District in the best interest of not just the taxpayers but especially the students of and pupils of the district. Um, and I I think when one party wants to talk about things, we
should uh accommodate that. So, um, I'm going to throw it open for for conversation first on um the documents themselves to the extent you want to talk about them tonight. Uh, it may require further um examination uh by us
uh uh before we actually meet. And secondly, I'd like to be able to propose back to um uh the uh Haritch board um some dates when we might want to meet and the venue. they have offered uh the
um to have the meeting at the Haritch Community Center um because it can accommodate a larger group um and that's fine but there's a limitation technology-wise because that is they cannot they're they cannot um telecast
the meeting from there. It can be live streamed but they can't entertain public comment because it's not a hybrid process. I um suggested to um Mr. Howell that we could possibly do it here in this room because we can entertain
public comment and um we may want to propose that back to them. I wanted to give him a heads up that that was something that might come up tonight. So let's take that piece secondly. Um and I would suggest we talk first about the document to the extent you'd like to
would like to. I want to just make um three highlevel comments relative to the documents which I did review um for a second time um and um
first uh there are three points I want to make. There was um some portion of of the analysis that was done and they had a subcommittee uh consisting of a select board member and um member of their finance committee prepare this material.
Um but a significant piece of the analysis focuses on Chadam's free cash situation in 2024. And I'm not sure they are aware that that was an anomaly. That was the year
when we had $11 million. And that was because um the um the state uh didn't allow us to credit as much as 6 million of that that year
uh uh in the prior year. So the prior year was significantly lower. I think it was in the two or three million range. So that's just it had to do with the timing of receipts and I'm not sure they are aware of that but that's just one thing I saw. I'm not trying to pick their document apart. I think it merits
consideration. Um secondly um um there is a an underlying um sense that I get from their materials that uh they want to
take a look at the comparative wealth and property values of the two towns uh with Chadams always obviously being higher. Um, but I think it's important to note that uh many of the um high value homes in
the town of Chadam are owned by seasonal residents who don't use the school system and that's something that should be taken into account. And then um the what I what I see thirdly what I see as um
um I'll call it an obstacle. That's probably too strong a word, but it's something I think has to be factored into the the analysis. If we want to talk about the fairness of a formula,
I think you have to al you have to as a threshold point compare the formula proportions of what pays and what Chadam what Chadam pays to the enrollments.
So we have a formula which um currently just roughly Haritch pays 76% and we pay 24%. Well the enrollments are approximately the same and
you can argue that that's fair. That's certainly the initial impression that I would put forward. But they they I think think the formula needs to be adjusted because it um there are other
factors which they have in their materials such as the comparative wealth of the two towns should be entered into the the analysis. I don't know I you know I had an informal conversation very briefly touching on that particular point with one of the other select board members in
Haritch a while back. Um so that's the point. Uh those are the kind of the my takeaways initially just looking at it from from higher level. Um and I'll open it up to further discussion. But as I
say I I think that um we should we should approach this in a positive um manner. Um listen to their concerns, talk with them and see you know where this where this leads. I think, you
know, we have an obligation to our taxpayers as well as to our students. And I wasn't involved when this merger took place. Jeff, you were. Uh, and you're probably the person most sophisticated in the knowledge of this. So, with that, I'm going to throw it open.
>> Yeah. You want to talk? >> Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Dean. Um, in terms of the letters, I really do think we ought to meet with them uh with the town of Harage, the select board. Um they did go out of their way in January to put together a package um fairly
robust package uh kind of outlining their their concerns about um the school budget and especially the assessment the way the assessment is is calculated. Um, it's a calculation that I'm extremely comfortable with and I think it's
grounded in fairness and was we used a wonderful consultant working with the town of Haritch when when we came up with it and it's based on some logic which is three-year ruling average. So for both the operating costs and the capital costs. So it's a fairly fair um fairly fair you know how we go about our
assessment that I watched the building committee discussion at the town of Haritch select board meeting the other night last week and it was a robust discussion about whether or not they have a they're going to go with a metal roof versus asphalt and blah blah blah. During the course of that discussion,
one select board member in Haritch in particular took great umbrage with the with the the way the school budget's done and they're they're they're paying way too much, etc., etc. And it's been a complaint or or a grousing if you will
or rumblings from the town of Harvard Select Board for a number of years going back two or three years. every single year. It seems as though sort of even late in the game during the Monterey Regional School budget discussions, they they need four or $500,000. Seems like seems like last year was 400, the year
before was 400, this year it's 500. So, every year they're they're they're really seeking some relief on on the school budget. Well, one of the reasons or the primary reason that I can ascertain because we did at one long long longer meeting um ask them to
please articulate the why they they need this relief. And the why right now is that they're up against their levy limit. They have no room in their levy limit. And they're also not looking to go to an override. So they are saying they're not going to go to an override to support the schools and they're up against their levy limit. So they're
looking around for to save money. And the kind of first place I see them looking are the schools. Well, okay. I mean, that's an expression of their priorities as a town. So, you know, let's let's have a discussion. Um, more than willing to sit down and discuss their concerns. Um, uh, I'm sorry
they're at their levy limit. Um, we are not, um, and haven't been out of levy limit for as long as I've been on the select board. So, the one caveat I would like to request this evening is for um I would like to sit down with Carrie and
Jill and maybe Scott or or even Michael, the their controller over there, and go through the package that Harri did submit to us back in January because I see some some some real issues with it. So, I need to go and I think we need to be informed as to what assumptions
they're bringing to bear and what facts they have included in this analysis that they presented. They did a lot of work. They did a lot of work to their credit. >> Um, but I do think we need to go through with a fine tooth comb and I'm more than willing to do I want to participate in that. So, I'm volunteering to do that.
Um, but I think Carrie needs to be there and we have some research to do as well. There's some there's some work to do here. So, that's what I'd like to do. But I I I think mid to late June um I've got some stuff happening early in June, but mid to late June I think is perfect. Certainly not before town meeting.
One of the one of the reasons I didn't pay real close attention to the the letter in January was that I knew that we would never have the time to do anything that would affect our town meeting in May. This well the runway just wasn't there. The timing runway wasn't just there. So, so that's why I,
you know, I I I I guess in retrospect, we should have at least acknowledged their hard work and the fact that they sent us a letter and, you know, should have responded. But, but that being said, um, I knew we didn't have time to prepare a response or a cogent response and that was going to affect our town meeting. So, I didn't think it was
warranted. But I do think that um given the dissatisfaction that's expressed in Haritch and um there's some deep dissatisfaction being expressed by the select board that we do need to sit down with them and figure out what the heck's going on and if
there's a way forward or not. Um so that's what I'd like to do. So I I that's what I'd like to do. >> Thank you. I did express to chair chair Howell this morning that some of our colleagues on this board might want some
time to >> absolutely >> go down to go down into detail with this and review it with staff and the school the school district personnel. So, you know, and we have both have town meetings coming up and town elections coming up. You know, we're going to have an
>> a new select board person. Yeah. >> Um, so uh and and I think that's fine and I don't think there'll be an issue on the other side on it. But any any other comments from the board on the document itself at this point? >> Yeah. I just um you know I understand as
Jeff had said the need for discussion um with the select board. I I your action plan Jeeoff is sounds really spot on to to deep dive into whatever is there. I I I mean, you know, when we were presented with the with the with the with the um
budget from Dr. Carpenter and his assessment of or his presentation of um the how the how the assessment was relevant um in a bigger picture uh really was spoton I thought and it just felt like well that's a very convincing argument. However, it appears that
Harage doesn't feel that way. So the best that could happen is a start of a conversation. It's probably, you know, will take some time and energy obviously and appreciate Jeff that you're going to you want to jump into this. I I won't be here. Um
but I fully endorse an action like that. Um as I sit here today, >> Corey, we absolutely have a duty to have a conversation with them. We're we're professional colleagues. We have that dialogue. more than happy to do that. Um
this you know we our priority is to the students and Monoy has been extremely successful. If you look at the students who have been able to transition from high school into the workforce into the military into different colleges we are
extremely successful. You look back look back over the last couple years how many of our graduates have gone off to Harvard. I mean what the percentage of enroll of acceptance is crazy and we have we've put three or three of them over the last couple years. That's that's pretty impressive. So we have a
successful school program. Um I think the formula has worked. I think it has a lot of merit. Um there's been obviously some difference of opinion on that. Um but we can have a dialogue. I'm happy to sit down, happy to meet. Um, I I do
think Jeff has the the best knowledge, the best experience with a lot of this, so I'm going to lean on him a little bit more on this, but I think we're all engaged in the conversation. Um, so we'll sit down, have a conversation with him, be professional, and um do what's
best for the for the school and and our taxpayers, too. >> Stuart, did you have anything you wanted to add to to this? >> Um, I don't think so. I I'm uh learning uh more so on this subject than some of the others. Uh so um I
think Jeff looking into it would be helpful. Um I I did have a kind of a question and if it's not the right time you can speak up but the the wealth factors it's always kind of did that come up uh
when we originally negotiated this or when the town >> it it did not it did not yeah >> I mean it's a little it's a little disappointing to see that >> because there's so much there's so much that goes into that there there's two different communities they have
different stresses and um you know the number of you know that I can see they're near their levy limit. I I don't know why they you know I don't know the details into that. Um but you know the the next uh the next uh blurb about the um residents over the age of 65 have
incomes less than 50. I mean we could give those statistics >> you know. Absolutely. You know so anyway that's >> one thing about the wealth factor is and and this has been confirmed several times by Scott Carpenter because we've asked him the
they you the formula starts off with with the foundation enrollment which is how many kids do you have in town that go to school whether it's to Monoy or any other school and the state formula for that includes a wealth component.
>> It does already. >> It does and that's really the only place in the formula where it's present. >> Yeah. But any anyway I >> Haritch would like to bake in some kind of wealth >> some addition >> factor into the into a new formula. But and the one other thing historically
before you came on board Stuart, last year toward the end of that fiscal year, Jeff and our then chair Mike Shell went to Haritch at their request and met with two representative, their chair and and
one of their other members to to I guess begin this discussion that they wanted to have. And they have also uh sent a request to the school committee to um open the agreement for I'm sorry Jill.
Open the agreement for consideration. It has to be reviewed every five years. >> Yeah. The the deal is every five years. Um and the language is that the school committee actually reviews it every five years. Now obviously they can't really kind of do a review without including talents and select boards etc. But it
really should be generated from the school committee. That the last one was in we they reviewed it in 17. The deal was struck in 12. They reviewed it in 17. We did another review in 22 when we included the elementary schools and changed some language. So, you know, we're up in 27 if you will for the
5-year review. So, so, so it's not it's not unourred that, you know, we should be looking at this every five years, but just a question of where it lands. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So, those are preliminary thoughts. Um, and then let me just ask next, uh, when would we like this? Do are there any
dates we want to propose? And where would we like to have the meeting? >> I'm open to the dates. Um, but um, I really think that this is has a lot of public interest. >> Yes. >> On both communities and they and it
should >> and I think the more we can have a public discussion and the public input and dialogue would be beneficial. So I would advocate that it would be here. I don't know how many people show up to their meetings. >> This is this is the better room for it because we can have what we have on the
screen now. People can call in or as well as come in person, log on, whatever. >> It can't happen at the community center. They don't have the capacity to do that >> and that's a real disadvantage, I think. >> So are we talking mid June? Is that enough time? >> I'd go late June. Late June.
>> Yeah, I would go late June. Yep. If >> I mean I should bite my microphone on. >> Okay. >> Late June. Yep. >> All right. I I >> We have some work to do. >> I'm going to open it. Um so I think the sentiment of the board right now is obviously we'll meet um we'll propose
meeting here in late June and we'll we'll let Jill work out some dates with Mr. McGrael, their new administrator. And I'm going to open it up for public comment right now. Is there any in the room here? I don't see any. I see Elaine Gibbs. Elaine.
>> Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I would agree with you that if uh you are going to have a meeting that it should be in Chadam. They are asking us for money and I think we have more at stake in uh
being able to comment. Um, I don't think there are many things in life you can count on, but what you can count on is every time Haritch runs into financial trouble, they look to Chadam and uh, this has been going on for years. Uh,
and they do it in kind of, as far as I'm concerned, an insulting way that, you know, we've got more money. And I think the fact that they even addressed the fact that they found out that we had free cash and they wanted it is is mindboggling to me. Um
just a couple things uh that Mr. Dykens had made a lot of good um uh points uh the last round of this uh that we had bailed them out because they were going to lose accreditation for their high
school and so we participated. Uh they now have a $300 million campus in Harwitch. you know, it never even came up that we could put it in Chadam and that's a huge asset for them. Uh we
donated the middle school to the district for $1. And what they did with their middle school is they converted it into u their creative arts center. It's a 70,000 square foot building on 13 acres with a
gym and an auditorium and artist studios. That's another huge asset that the town has, the town of Haritch has, thanks to Chadam. Um, >> yep. >> We have um uh we have diverted our
sewering uh to them when they didn't want to build their wastewater treatment facility in East Haritch. And consequently, we have not met our goals. Our goals at the time were twothirds of the town by 2030. That would be 5,300 homes sewered. Right now, we got about
1,500 sewer uh by because they diverted it to East Taridge and most of East Taridge is now selling homes all sewed. Um every time again uh we have a problem uh or they have a problem, they come to
us. We have to stop funding Haritch's poor financial planning. We have saved them hundreds of millions of dollars and they use our community center. As a matter of fact, they have a creative art center with a gymnasium etc. But they
participate in many many programs at our community center. So I think we've done our part and I think you know mismanagement of their finances and the fact that they've exceeded their tax levy or what their funding levy is not our problem. They need to they need to
cut some other places within their budget and not look to Chadam to bail them out every time. Thank you. >> Thank you, Elaine. Meredith Fry, >> Meredith Fry, 18 Cross Tree Hollow. Uh, I just want you to consider, and I agree
with Corey, that we are a regional school. So, it's not us and them. It's not, we're not divided here. We have to work together. And the school is getting stronger and stronger. My son went through the whole program, Monoy
Regional High School, played with Corey's kids on the soccer team. They made it to the state finals. Uh my girls went through middle school, half a high school. Um it's not us versus them and we have to
work together for the children and be proud of these kids and we can't position Cadam kids and Harwitch kids. We're a regional school and we have to act like a regional district. So I just, you know, we have to consider that and
yes, I think the divide right now is fair, but we have to work together with Haritch and not against them. >> Thank you, Meredith. Any other comment? I just wanted to uh remind everyone that
um I think the last time we had Scott Carpenter present, he had a set of slides which showed the success of this district since it started. Um, in terms of the popularity of the district amongst students and parents, the
numbers show it. Um, we're doing better than the other districts. Uh, so we all need to work together to make sure that that continues and we need to protect the interests of the students and the taxpayers of Cadam. So, okay. Um, so I
think we're we're resolved on we have the consensus on the dates and we'll get back to them. Thank you. Uh the next item on the agenda is to consider the policy on public meeting recording and participation policy for appointed boards, commissions and
committees. This is um been rescheduled uh from a couple weeks ago. There is a draft document that we had asked um our staff to prepare and it's in the packet and there is a subsidiary
um item that was requested by um Cadam citizen Carol Bliss to request that the airport commission um to li request for the airport commission to live broadcast meetings. Um this is a citizen agenda request a sort of a sub
sub item of the main item. So um I guess the first question Jill are we being asked to approve this public meeting recording policy. >> Mr. Chair, I want to turn this over to Kathy Lewis. She was assisted in preparing it. >> Yeah.
>> So what you have before you as you said, Mr. chair is a draft public meeting recording and participation policy for appointed boards, commissions and committees. Um we had drafted this I believe last year. Um but it uh during
it came from one of the working sessions uh when we were doing our annual committee board commission review uh because there was discussion as to having a an overarching policy at that time. We kind of tabled it because we had something in place that basically said, you know, committees will meet and
it it was working. It was a pre it was the COVID policy, I believe, that was put in place. What's before you tonight would kind of um really establish a policy, a permanent policy, not you know, building off of that COVID policy uh to standardize recordings and uh
participation policies for all because at the moment different committees are doing different things. regulatory committees are broadcast live. We've been doing that consistently, but the advisory committees and some of the statutory committees are different in how they're handling things. So, uh this
is before you to consider so that it becomes more standardized across the board for all committees, boards and commissions. So back in April, we considered um live broadcast versus um meeting uh with the log on broadcast log
on um mo mode of meetings at because the there was one particular regulatory board, the board of health that was interested not in meeting in this room. I wanted to meet in the next room and this consensus of the board this was before you got on Steuart was that we
wanted all regulatory boards to meet in this room because to be televised and that's what the board of health continues to do um and so um we didn't adopt any policy that night but this is the policy and this um sort of evolved
from what we had in co at one point all the boards were shut down except for the regulatory boards which had to Correct. Hybrid meetings were pretty much the norm for a while. >> That became became >> it became, you know, the norm for I believe the regulatory boards and some
of the advisory boards. Some advisory committees don't do hybrid. They do in person only. So again, this would be looking to standardize that for all. >> So does the board want to talk about this policy first? Do you want to roll in the consideration of um Miss Bliss's
request? How do you want to deal with this tonight? Because I know there were people that probably want to speak on the second item, Stuart. Uh, okay. I think, um, maybe we want Well,
so at the time, this is back uh there's no date on this page, but um back in March, I guess that the board considered this. They considered >> it was in April. in I'm sorry, April. And uh the following boards and
commissions are considered regulatory. Um I'm I'm on page one of the um >> yeah, >> the following boards and commissions are considered regulatory. I guess that means for this policy because that
certainly is not all the regulatory groups that we have, right? Well, I think I think this is the committee handbook, which I know you're familiar with, where um all the committees in existence at that time, and there are a couple which are no longer around. And
we have some new ones that are are not here are listed, and they're categorized according to whether they're statutory or regulatory or advisory. And some are are both. Um, statutory simply means there's a state's law that says you have
to have a conservation commission. >> But we know that the conservation commission is regulatory because regulatory comm bodies are are committees or commissions that make rules that that um grant permits or um
regulate activities by property owners in essentially in town. So that is probably the correct listing of what is quote a regulatory commission that you've got the the HBDC which can
control your the appearance of your facade uh in the H in the in the historic business district. You've got the historical commission which can control uh what you might do to remodel or expand your house or demolish it um
if it's a certain age. Uh you've got the zoning board which it can control um development on your property. We got the we've got the planning board which can pretty much do do things along those lines as well. And what did I leave out? >> Board of health and conservation. The
board of health has ext considerable regulatory authority on people can on how people and property owners can conduct themselves uh with a view to and um promoting the public health and environment and the conservation commission similarly. But you have other
other bodies that are quote statutory uh like uh the Council on Aging, the the Cemetery Commission um and the um uh the airport commission uh and um
>> assessors, >> park and recck commission. >> Park, >> I don't think I would necessarily regard those as regulatory, although I in some instances they have some powers, you know, like parks and wreck. >> Yeah. and set I guess they can't set fees that has to come to us but
>> and they fall under a statute. >> Yeah. So that's the that's the terminology. >> I mean I guess this sentence wouldn't have been as conf if if the following boards and commissions are considered regulatory uh in the arena or the area of land use. Okay, I get that.
Um that's not what it says, but that's that's what we're saying >> about land use because the board of health is not land use only. They regulate they they regulate land use issues. >> They Yes. Yeah. But they also regulate other things, >> right? Um so what I was the real point I
was trying to make was these aren't all the regulatory commissions. Uh we have other statutory airport commission, uh cemetery commission, uh the assessors, the parks and recck commission who who are formed under statute. And in
>> I think all of those cases, I'm I'm not sure about the assessors, but certainly the other three have regulatory. They write their own regulations. They adopt the reg. >> Well, they have regulations. Yeah. And I suppose if you can look at it from that prism and say if you write a regulation, you're a regulatory commission. But I I guess to me just looking at it from I
guess I'll call a legal perspective, a regulatory commission is is a is a body that can uh direct or control what you do personally or what you do on your property. >> Oh. as opposed to the park and rec
controls and regulates what goes on on town owned >> beaches beaches and parks and the airport the same thing with the with the airport they don't I don't know if the airport commission even has regulations but >> so in this proposed draft though where I was headed is these regulatory let's
call them regulatory commissions >> uh are formed under statute they create regulations in the uh area of uh regulating land use as opposed to these are >> just I just think that's probably too
limiting to to limit them to land you limit the definition to land of a regulatory body to a land use because >> I'm not being clear >> I don't care what the definition is >> my point is that
>> I'll make it easier the these these ones that are outlined in this draft policy are not all of our statutory regulatory as this says >> that's true and this this list here you know we've got for example I mean this was done and I have to tell you when
>> three of us I don't think Shireen you were on the board fortunately to your good fortune you weren't on the board when this was being done you're escaping >> Mr. Roper came up with the final draft. >> Um but uh so we didn't really pay attention to these categories categories
but the the the affordable housing trust is listed as a statutory but then it has an RA behind it because uh statutory committ committees appended with an R are considered as regulatory committees in shadams. So beside the beside the um
the affordable housing trust board of trustees it says statutory with a parenthesis with an R. The airport commission right underneath it just says statutory. Conservation Commission is listed as statutory with an R. >> So yeah, I don't mean to >> No, no, I'm just
>> dismiss that document. >> No, I'm just saying that's this is where this is all coming from. >> Okay. Well, you know, um I I know what statutory is. I know what regulations are. I think most of the public would know and the this does not include all of them. So that was really my only
point. um how we want to define it further is is fine, but um I do believe similar to the to the school discussion where hopefully we're going to have it here and hopefully we're going to you know have a good discussion and open one where it's transparent and people can
engage uh with the public. Um I think that uh particularly the airport commission would benefit from being part of this list. um it has had a you know a difficult history. It's a major
resource. I think it's a I think it's a um you know I think it's a positive resource. I've said that repeatedly. But it does uh and I've also said that um it it it needs uh it needs work and uh you
know my short tenure as liaison for a year now uh next month um is that uh you know there there's there's concerns about the airport that I think could be better vetted and I think if they were vetted we wouldn't have half of the back
and forth that we have now. Um, I just think, you know, uh, you know what they say, uh, you know, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Open the door and let the sunshine and and I think that this would be helpful. Uh, I think the airport commission goes a long way towards, you
know, uh, getting the information out there, but I think having it live broadcast would be uh, very beneficial um, in my in my opinion. I think that um you we I think there's also a letter here saying that um you know the IT
staff or the television staff uh uh doesn't have a Yeah, actually it says it right here. Uh moving into the large meeting room that would be fine with us. It seems to be good uh on the master calendar. They usually finish before 8:00 p.m. and
would not impact the OT uh CE um if they kept to that. Um I've never been at an airport meeting at least while I've been on it goes to 8. Uh their chairman is very disciplined and functional in moving the meeting along and it's usually done within an hour and a half
or so. So um I think there's a benefit and I would um suggest that the airport commission um uh be added to this list. And um the other question I had is is there any is there any discussions or
about having any other room other than this one? I think it's just this one that is able to be televised. I'm, you know, I look at the windows there and there's certainly some money involved here, but um we did we used to have the basement of the town hall uh able to do
that and um I'm sure there's staffing issues, but I just didn't know is there was there any uh look see into that before I was here. >> Well, I do know that the staff has currently works till 8:00 on the average day, right? That's why he mentioned that. Jill, do you want to comment on
Stuart's? >> Yes. So, the staff works from um 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 PM Monday through Thursday. >> The I I need to I guess check with Mark. The community center has been upgraded.
I just don't know if it's absolutely upgraded for a live meeting. I don't know if Mark Meor, if you want to come out here, um please. Uh the the town hall studio lower level that was dismantled. So, a lot of the stuff was moved here, including the new stuff. Um,
and Mark can speak to the um capabilities at the community center. Um, it all res revolves around a master calendar as we noted. And so, there's there's only so many meetings with some break time, maybe a half an hour between live meetings that the the team needs to
be able to either back up or push to wherever they need to. >> Mark, >> what's the first question? Well, I could ask the first question if you want. Go ahead. Is the Now that Jill's led into that, the community center, is that is there a room there that's capable of what you do here?
>> The community center has uh installed video cameras and an audio system. Uh we can stream to YouTube and we can record, but we can't live broadcast on Xfinity. >> It's that's only done here. >> Only down here.
>> And I'm I'm not going to ask you, but I'm looking at the equipment. It's probably not a minor expense to have a duplicate of this room. >> Um, yeah, not a minor expense. Um, it it more involves uh fiber optic connection.
>> Yeah. >> And uh the fiber is currently here, >> goes to the elementary school and then to Comcast. >> I gota >> um what was done in the past at the community center? I don't know if there's things pre-installed that never
got utilized. That would be something for maybe Mr. Whan to to think about. >> Yeah, the um well um as you pointed out, you know, there there this room is available for uh the airport commission. They don't have to move their time or their date. Um I might I might think of
it differently if we had to move the time and date, but I think it's I think it's an opportunity we should take advantage of. >> Mark, thank you, Stuart. and and obviously you've you've answered my initial question as to whether we wanted to talk about item sub item A which we
are um and I'll we'll look to others and the public in a moment but um Mark so just to clarify for the benefit of the public who are following this meeting that are held like in the small room next door or at rooms in the community
center or even in at the town offices um if they are hybrid meetings um the public can log on in real time or call in in real time and participate. >> Yeah. As long as all the information has
been disseminated clearly, um anybody should be able to dial in on the phone or use a link on their computer to join the meeting remotely. um for the community center um conference room on the first floor, for uh the town hall
meeting room, uh for the annex small meeting room, >> and and that information is is included in the meeting notices that are posted on on uh the official town website. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um any other comments at the board
level first? Okay. I'm going to open it up, but the first person who had his hand up was is Stephen Buckley. Stephen. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Go ahead. >> Stephen, could I ask you to hold for a moment because I I neglected this is this was this item was requested by um Carol Bliss. Ordinarily, I would ask Carol, do you or your husband want to come and speak to it? And then we'll
open it up the ne and we'll open up for public comment, including from the chair of the airport commission whenever he'd like to speak. Mr. Style >> Jerry Stall West Chadam speaking on behalf of my wife Carol Bliss who
requested this and I'm just going to read her statement. Thank you for this opportunity to present my request which is really quite simple. Please televise the airport commission meetings again as they were prior to
COVID but were never reinstituted after that. At that time, the airport commission was adopting its long range plan, the AMU. Now, the airport commission chair and Gale consultants are working on a study
to revise that AMU to justify an annually increasing number of landings by Pilatus planes for which the Cadam airport is not designed. This process is being carried out with little
public transparency. We all know that the airport continues to be a source of controversy between the town and many residents. Trust has eroded over the years and misinformation and rumors continue to
circulate. Many more residents would watch the meetings if they were live broadcast and were easily accessible on TV. Transparency and communication continued
to be the words we hear over and over. They would be greatly enhanced if residents were able to easily access live airport commission meetings. Bringing these important meetings back to live TV would be a positive gesture
and signal that we are being listened to and heard in an attempt to bring trust back to local governance of the airport. Thank you, Carol Bliss. >> Thank you, Jerry. Um, Huntley, did you want to speak now or did you want to
wait for >> Okay, I'm gonna go to Steven Buckley. He he was the first one and then we'll come to other public comment after that. Stephen, you're back on. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh
I don't know why I'm on twice, but Oh, I see. I got it. Got um anyway, thank you. Um I I want to uh echo what was just said uh under Carol the written remarks
by Carol Bliss. Um and also point to the uh the first page or the first sentence of the uh the draft proposal that's before you. It says the policy the purpose is for this policy establishes guidelines
for the operation of public meetings held by the town's appointed boards, commission and committees to promote consistency, transparency and to facilitate public participation.
And if things are clear, meaning transparency, that's the same thing as clarity. if if people have the same consistency across. So no matter what board or committee or event
that they show up to share their thoughts and raise their concerns. If they're all run basically the same way, the same rules, then it's going to be much better and
easier for people who and who will want to participate and play the game. Imagine if you went every ballpark you went to, they had three strikes and three outs. Oh, but over here it's two outs and three strikes. And this one's four
strikes and four outs. It's kind of the same game. It looks like the same game, but it these are all significant things and deterrence to understanding what the heck is going on and how do I how does a person uh participate in that. So, uh,
I, um, as people know, I've been a big proponent of that for a while. And, uh, all the way back to, uh, when I was on the, uh, long range committee in 2003, we didn't even have a website. And as a member of that committee, I took the drafts and put them up for
public comment on the library website so people could see what was going on with the long range plan. And then about 10 years ago um or so um I even gave a demonstration to um the town manager let
me give a demo to of remote participation to uh town staff department heads >> and um it if it wasn't for co we probably would not be I wouldn't be remotely participating now >> right
>> so uh anyway I just wanted to point out that uh uh I would suggest that uh if you want to pass something now, but any policy like this should be attached to the committee handbook. There should be a reference so that they're not
separate free floating documents. There's a there's a paragraph in the remote in the committee handbook that talks about remote participation, but it only talks about it as if committee members are the only ones who
would be remotely participating. And I knew, no, people would be able to use this, too. You wouldn't have to be that way. So, of course, like I said, CO came along and gave everybody a reality check about what was possible. And um now
we're I think because of that, more people are able to participate. Um I I saw a shot just a second ago. I don't know how many people are there in person. It looked like maybe it was just a couple. And so I think there should be a uh a task force, a group or something.
So it's more than just um a single communication or communications manager who is is I'm not uh I think there's a lot the whole idea of public participation is that people outside of government might know something and be
able to add value to a product. Um, and so that's what I would suggest if you want to pass something now, but the an agenda item that talks about a group, call it a task group, call it an advisory group, call it whatever you want to be able to update everything,
update the committee manual, and um, also things like u artificial intelligence, note takingaking, things like that, and not just leave it up to staff to come up with something they think you'll like. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Stephen. I just would point
out that um we have several policies that affect committees and policies have a legal standing to them. They they govern they are intend they're voted by this board. They are intended to govern actions by committees. For example, this the committee handbook has no legal
standing. It's really guidance. It was approved by the select board. So we really want to be careful not to uh look just to the committee handbook for directives on what how things should be. But the committee handbook should when it's updated reflect what's in these
policies. So I just really wanted to get that clarification. I think Paula Lafran, you were next. >> Thank you, Stephen. >> Mr. Chair, after Miss Lafrren, I have a clarifying question. >> Sure. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Paula
Lafrren, Horizon Drive. I'm here in support of this agenda item request um that Carol has put forward. About a decade ago, the select board at that time made the decision to move the airport commission from the back room at the airport to this large meeting room
here in order to have airport operations be transparent and widely understood by the general public. It was very successful. Viewing the meeting on TV allowed people easy access to the proceedings, good sound, good visual quality, and multiple showings without
having to have access to or expertise with a computer. Logging in is a possibility right now, but there are a lot of people in our residence that don't know how to log in and once they do can't understand the proceedings.
Later, the AC was asked to move the meeting to the small room next door. And if I remember correctly, it was to accommodate a select board's scheduling difficulty. And so, we agreed, but not permanently. The caveat at the time of that vote was that we would return to
this room when the master plan came up for re vision, so the public would be able to take part in the conversation and decision-making process about the future of the airport. So when we moved in there, like I said, it was because we were going to come back when the master
plan came before the public that we all deserved to hear the conversations about that master plan. But then CO happened. The AC remains in the small room where recordings are difficult to understand, particularly those of us with vision and hearing challenges.
Along with regular operations, two major airport projects are coming up. the vegetation tree removal project and the DG2 safety study. And as you probably convict, predict and have said, there will be much interest in many questions for the commissioners and engineers as
these initiatives play out. The AC should take advantage of this opportunity to be televised in order to educate the public about what they want to be voted on at town meeting. The best way for them to get the word out is to be in this room and on that TV.
Residents deserve to be able to listen to the monthly progress reports and participate in these discussions in a venue that is accessible. I urge you to approve the return of the AC to the big room with the comfy chairs. I have looked at the meeting calendar online and it appears that there is no other
meeting in this room at the same time as when the AC is meeting next door. Simple switch, just a different door. The select board and the airport commission both agree there needs to be more cooperation between the airport and the town residents. Voting in favor of
this agenda item is a very easy first step towards rebuilding that public trust. I might add that I was surprised to hear the difference between statutory and regulated regulatory and how that affects the definition of the airport
commission. They make they do follow the FAA regulations, but they may make wide widely um effective decisions about what's going to happen and especially about grant assurances. So, they're
sitting there um making the decision for the public to enter into contracts that affect the lives of the people in this town. It's my belief that the residents should know this is happening and this would be the easiest way to do it to
return the AC here. Thank you. >> I'll take issue with your description of these chairs as being comfortable. They should >> Oh, they were so much better than the back room at the airport. >> They should be junked. Secondly, I until I came to Chadam, I never heard the term statutory commission.
I I that is not your doing. I'm just saying I never heard that. I I look upon regulatory commissions as bodies that affect me personally in my conduct of my life or or in my handling of my personal
property. But then the last thing I would say um I've been on this board 11 years in the early years before we had before we experienced COVID and adopted the hybrid mode. Um we used to get a big crowd of people in this room even though
we were televised. Uh and once we started with the hybrid meetings, you can see the only people here tonight are are a handful and that's typically what we have unless there are items on the agenda where they are participants in those items. So I don't know what
that means, whether it means more people are are taking advantage of the hybrid mode or not. I'm just trying to lay out the facts here, but that's all. I'm I don't mean to debate with you except on this the chairs except when the chair I'll debate the the comfort of these chairs with you. But I'll that's about
all >> not looking for debate Dean, but I do agree with you that um and I've taken advantage of hybrid, but I've also taken advantage of watching you on the television. And you're right, the thing that's different um for my participation is that when you
have someone who's coming up and interested in your agenda item, you get to hear what the pulse is of the people who are affected. And that doesn't really happen happen in the other room because the the the technology isn't good. And so you're right. It surprises
me not to see so many people here and to stay and to stay late unless they're really um passionate about the um about the subject. >> Yeah. >> But I do worry Dean about the the the older the older population of which I am
too who do not have facility to um enjoy logging in with hybrid and it's really difficult and so that disenfranchises disenfranchises those people who don't have that facility. Yeah, I don't even like this circular setup with the panel here. I I
think this is why the board of health wants to meet in there because they like meeting around the table and we've gone to other towns, the town of Orleans and the town of Haritch. Their select board meets around a table so they can have a conversation. Anyway, thank you Paul. >> Thanks Dean. Thank you committee.
>> Harriet Proud and then Elaine Gibbs. >> Harriet Proud Shatic Place. Um you were listing off um committees or commissions that dealt with land. Is that correct? >> Some of them do. >> Yes. And most of them are in this room, those committees, because I watched them
on TV. >> Yeah. >> And this is a big piece of land. Our land. Our land. Everybody's land in in Chadam. We should be knowing what's going on with that land. what's going to happen to that land as we know who's
going to be putting up a swimming pool or who's has to do their conservation or if it's my neighbor we find out from about our neighbors. >> I'm sorry I was I had forgotten to call on Shireen but can please continue Harriet.
>> Okay. Um so this is this is our land our land. Chadam's land and we should know what's going on. I used to come to the meetings here, but it is really easy to just turn
on the TV and watch what's going on and maybe correspond with someone afterwards if you know I could add something to it. But many people watch it on TV and we can watch it not just live but we can watch it the day after sometimes two or
three days after and that is what should happen with the airport so people will see it. So understand it. People don't understand what's going on with the airport and they can't they don't seem to I can get on the computer. I can pull up any meeting that I want. But many
people don't understand how to do that. Many people don't even have computers that are my age anymore because they have their phone and that's all they need and they don't want the maintenance of a computer. So I think it would benefit everyone in this town to know what's happening to our land. Our water
is under the airport. the trees were going down. We heard a lot about the trees and many people didn't understand about that because it wasn't televised and it wasn't repeated on the television. And so I I would really appreciate that you follow what what
Carol has asked for and pass this. >> Thank you, Harriet. Shireen, I'm sorry. I >> That's quite a I'll defer to um Miss Gibbs. >> Okay, Elaine. >> You're on. >> Uh thank you. I'll I'll keep it short. uh when you do uh revisit the public
participation policy, I think you have to reinforce with people. I think what you're saying is you want them to f all the committees to follow the procedure you have and that's allowing public comment either at the beginning or during the agenda item before you know a
vote is taken. Uh I was on the airport commission a couple weeks ago and uh the chairman wouldn't let me speak during you know after they talked about an issue and he said oh no we're following the select board. I tried to tell him
that that's not how you do it. So I think it's important to let have the all the committees allow public participation either at the beginning or during the agenda item as you do. It's been very helpful. It it I think it things run more smoothly. A lot of
questions don't have to be asked. And I would also say they should be in a large meeting room. Other people have referred to it. The room that you used as an example uh for the uh Council on Aging Committee meeting um on the progress and the funding and all that kind of stuff
and the workshop. Uh the sound was terrible and you can go back and look at the video. it. You couldn't hear it most of the time and it's very frustrating when people are trying to listen and cannot hear because of the poor quality. So, whatever can be done in the large room should be Thank you.
>> Thank you, Elaine. The public participation policy that you're referring to is a different one from the one we're considering tonight. That one is actually in our packet every week and that has been submitted provided to all the committees. >> So, they're supposed to follow that. But, thank you for reminding us. Uh,
Brian Phillips and then Carol Gordon. Brian Phillips, 374 Road. Um I did participate in an Airh airport commission meeting uh remotely and it was um it was challenging to say the least. There was like this tiny little box. I could you know I couldn't really see it and I was tough to hear and um
because I I typically come to the meetings in person so I can you know see and hear everything. Okay. So I guess if that's not going to cost more money and um you can put us on TV or the airport commission on TV. Uh I think you should do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. I should note that you're an
airport commissioner. Carol Gordon, >> Carol Gordon, South Cadam. So, I've um over the past few weeks I've talked to a lot of people and of course the airport always comes up and they have many questions about what's going to be happening, what's happening with the trees, what's happening with the study, what's going to be included in the
study, are does the community going to have any interest in it or have any say. So I believe in the interest of transparency, a really good first step would be to have the meetings televised and uh they were televised before and if CO hadn't happened they'd probably still
be televised. So I think that it's kind of a simple thing to do to take a really good first step for the people. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Carol Shireen before I do you want to ask question now or >> No, it's not a question. It's more like a statement. So I think >> wait till Huntley speaks. >> Yeah, I'd rather wait till Huntley
speaks. Any any other people who are advocating in support of Carol's position? Carol Bliss's position. I don't see anybody. Huntley Harrison, chair of the airport commission. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank you for postponing until tonight since I
couldn't make it last week. I appreciate that. Um, I mean, just to start off, I we're very happy next door as a as a commission. I think as was stated earlier, people have telephones, they
have computers, they can come to meetings personally. We're wide open. I really, to be frank, don't understand when I hear people say that we don't communicate. We're there
every month. We're communicating. We have our minutes are public. Once they get approved, they're out there. Uh we don't, if we're lucky to have one or two people at our meetings, we're lucky. Uh
I think now and then we'll have some people online. Most of the time it's our engineer, our consultant giving a report. Um, I mean, if people were really interested in what we're doing, I would suspect
they would be showing up and asking questions and making sure they hear the answers from us and not from third parties who are who really the only word I can come up with the
words I can come up with are are basically spurious suppositions as to what we do with regard to statutory and regulatory. We are a statutory commission by virtue of the fact that
the state under chapter 90 establishes airport commissions. So we are statutory. The only regulatory piece that we do is within the airport itself and what we do with regard to FAA and
mass dot regulations and how we enforce those to make sure that the airport operates and is managed safely and efficiently, which is what the state and the feds
expect. So I I think the I think that what what we're dealing with here is something that will not be solved by putting us on television. In fact, going
back to the time we were on television, uh a previous speaker said it was very successful. I I would, you know, say no, it really wasn't. There was a time when we had a speaker who wouldn't leave
the podium and the chairman had to call the police to get her off the off the podium. So, we had to we had to postpone the meeting temporarily until that happened. Unfortunately, the person left before the uh police
arrived, but they did arrive to find out what was going on. And I think it would also provide an opportunity certainly for people to tell us how they think, but they have that opportunity now.
And if they're not taking advantage of it, I'm sorry. With regard to the tree removal process, that's been public and out there for years, literally years. Those trees were supposed to be coming down
last Christmas in that in the winter period, but we've had to delay it for a variety of reasons. But that's been in the papers. It's been going back and forth, back and forth in terms of what's going
on with that for literally years. The other issue that was just brought up was about the study that we're doing. Well, we're doing the study for the public. We want to know just as much as they do about the air the airplanes that are coming in
here and what kind of mitigation may or may not have to take place as a result of those larger airplanes landing. So, we're addressing all these issues. It's public. It's out there. We've talked about it.
And we're dealing that the trees are dealing with safety. The trees are not dealing with enabling larger aircraft to come in. Has nothing whatsoever to do with that. And the study is for safety. We want to find out
exactly what the safety issues are with a larger plan. >> Point of order. >> Point of order. >> Um I think we're getting off topic to the public. >> Well, I'm going to allow it because we had a discussion. We had comment about about trees from the previous speaker, but we'll, you know, we'll confine it.
>> Thank you. I I'll I'll wrap it up. I you know I I just don't think it'll be very successful. It hasn't been in the past. I don't see the benefit of of having us in here with two or three people in
here. And in fact, where are we not being transparent? What exactly I've never really heard it defined. What is it where we're not transparent? What is it that we are not communicating? Tell me. I don't know. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Huntley. Okay. I'm Harriet, I'll give you a chance to make a comment and then second time then I'm going to bring it back to the board. >> I don't know when the airport meets and most people don't know when the airport
meets, but everyone watches the television. Everyone sees your meetings, whether they're watching it live or whether they're watching it the day after. Even when they're at midnight, they record them. They watch all the meetings that are on the television. And
we do not see the airport meetings on the television. They would know more about what's going on if it was on the television. And this is our land. This is our land, not just the airport commission's land. This is our land. And I would like to see it done correctly.
Thank you, >> Stephen. I'll give you a one minute re response and then then we're cutting off public comment and coming back to Miss Davis who's been wanting to ask make a comment for 10 minutes. Thank you,
>> Stephen. >> Yes. Thank you very much. That's all I need is a minute. Thank you. Um, it's interesting that the word transparency has been thrown around a lot for for many many years and everybody thinks it's something that you do to people at
the person who decides whether you're being clear to them is the recipient of your information. And if uh the previous speaker want who says he doesn't understand what he's not what not being
clear being made clear I would have to take I would have to take him at his word that he doesn't understand and the only way you can understand how you're not being clear is to ask and have a conversation with somebody and that doesn't happen at airport meetings.
People talk at each other not with each other. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Shireen. Sorry for >> That's okay, Mr. Chair. Um, first off, as far as the draft policy goes, um, I I really agree that, um, all the meetings should be in, uh, include a remote
participation option. I think that that's, you know, it's in the draft. Um, and we accepted that. Um, but that was the change. But what I wanted to talk about was the library the library. Oh, poor library. Um, airport issue. Um, you
know, I I I listened to everybody and what they were saying about um what their issues were and I kept hearing the word transparency. And I don't think it's a transparency problem. It's an access problem. It's the ability to be able to access a certain way how you get
to the how you see the meeting. It's not it's the the airport's being transparent. The the town of Chattam is being transparent. Meetings are posted. there are four or five different options to be able to watch uh with a few options to be able to participate in the
airports meeting similar to probably the affordable housing trust meetings. Um probably they're very similarly structured. Um so I think this is about what uh Miss Lafrren said about the inability to be able to hear the quality of of the meetings in the in the smaller
room. Uh it's around a table. It's very difficult sometimes if people don't have their their their mics which are reminded to have them close to us and and to be able to hear saying all that though I think it if that's the issue which is a legitimate issue and it's
probably an issue for all meetings in that room we should be looking at that and seeing how to amend fix or improve the conditions in the room number one but the airport is a um is a is a complicated has a complicated relation
relationship with the with the community and um if there is an opportunity that they can come back to this room, it's not going to impede any uh extra costs or time constraints on anybody, then have them come back, but they might not
be the only one that will be requested to come back to this room or to use this room. There's going to if if this continues to be or is the issue of having the inability to hear, the uncomfortableness of of that Um I I the
only reason I can see that anybody would want these live and on television is that you can hear it more clear. Uh you can see it more conveniently. Participation if you're not on a computer um you're not participating by just watching the television. You might
be um seeing it but you know you're not here in the room to participate. So, I I think that argument is a little is is a little suspect, but I I feel that it's probably an access issue uh for a lot of the folks that came here tonight to say >> just just as an observation and I'm not
taking issue with anything you said. I think what you say is say is well taken. But >> where do you stop? >> Well, that's my point. >> We want the affordable housing trust in here because what they did is they were dealing with serious controversial issues, two major projects.
Are they going to come in this room? Are we going to have um all these other boards wanting to come in here? That's >> my point. Exactly, Mr. Chair. And what I'm saying, but I'm say what I'm saying is there, you know, maybe there's an opportunity to improve how
>> how that room is is managed or it's no fault of Chim, but maybe it's the technology. Maybe it's just the the training on how to use the mics and be a little more uh you know might be the the the biggest issue that that that that room has that people aren't right here
talking in their mics. >> That's right. Thank you. Uh Corey, very very simple. This meeting room, that meeting room. Can you can you attend in public? This room? Yes. That room? Yes. Can you sign online and participate virtually through
the link? This room? Yes. That room? Yes. Can you if you have a live um venue, what's the difference? You sit at home, you're watching, you're listening, you're learning. You're not me you're not necessarily linked on.
You're you're not creating another lift for the committee to be to to manage. You're you're just getting better access. It's another venue to understand. And airport commission affordable housing trust. I do think these committees they are they are they
are the bodies that are creating bigger buzz bigger impact for the community I think providing the best access to our citizens on committees that clearly have higher impact um are beneficial. So if
we can accommodate that in this room, I say we do it. And if we can expand our technology into other facilities, another room, another location, we should look at that because as much as I don't like seeing a an empty room
sometimes, I mean, you know, I mean, we used to have a much fuller audience at times. That's why we have all these wonderful seats here. Um, people are home. They're having their dinner. They're having their glass of wine. they're taking care of, you know, some other business. They may be doing their
laundry and watching us, but they're listening and learning and engaging and understanding firsthand what is being discussed versus secondhand down the down, you know, down later. So, as much as we can accommodate in the live meeting rooms, I'm I'm I'm supportive of
that. So, >> okay. Any better comments from the board? >> John, I I I just listened very carefully to what Mr. Meta said in terms of you can attend the meeting in the little room. You can attend the meeting here.
You can log on via uh a link to the meeting over there and the meeting here. You can watch the meeting live over there. You can watch the meeting live here. You can watch tomorrow or the next day or the next day. You can log on. You
can watch the meeting there. And you can also watch a rebroadcast of the meeting here. You can call in over there. You can call in. You can call in here. So I honestly don't know what I I think it is. Folks are struggling to be able to
log on to a link rather than turning the TV on. I think that's the issue. I think that's the issue because the what's happens there also happens here. It's just this is live TV and that's a live link. I was at the cemetery commission.
They have a live link. I like the I like being able to offer hybrid to all our statutory and regulatory committees. I mean, I don't know about advisory commissions yet committees yet, but um if there's no, this is where I land. If there's no, and I appreciate Huntley
saying he doesn't want to do it, but if there's no incremental expense to having the airport commission live on TV here, and if it's easier for folks to access, then I'm going to I'm going to probably land there. And that's not kind of where I was headed before I heard everybody
speak this evening. Um I uh so we're not adding staff. We have the available we have avail time available and we're not adding staff. Okay. Um, and I do think we need to be cognizant of setting a precedent for other meetings that folks might want to have here. But, um, and
and just I do have a comment about transparency. I do believe that um, those that are engaged and pay attention to the airport commission are it's transparent. I don't I think transparent is is an overused word for I don't agree
with what they're doing. They're not being transparent. But in fact, you really just disagree with what they're doing. Um, so if getting here in this room allows folks to understand better what they're doing and have it be more transparent, then so be it. If that if
they believe that's more transparent, so be it. So I I would support. And the other thing that that got me this evening was the airport commission was here pre-COVID. It was it was airship. So, um, I think prior select boards thought it important enough to have it on on camera here in, you know,
pre-COVID and then, so anyway, >> well, I suspect what what drove that you were on the >> for a part of that time. I suspect what drove it was the skydiving issue. That's what >> Yeah, we had many a hearing on skydiving, >> but I I don't know. I um
I interrupted you. >> I honestly think um push comes to shove. I think the the use of the word transparent is over overused, over wrought. Um I I don't know how the the airport commission can be any more transparent than what they're doing. Thanks. >> Um
I have a philosophical problem with calling the airport commission a regulator. Want to have a policy that includes the airport commission. I would say the following regulatory boards which are the ones listed here the five or six plus
the airport commission or whatever other one ones you want to add. Um I you know you know there's a responsibility on a citizen to take an interest in government. You don't show up at town meeting or at the at the polls on
election day and vote based on uh hearsay around town because you didn't bother to listen to what or read follow meetings where where you have every opportunity to follow them or read the newspapers. And that bothers me and we shouldn't be formulating town policy on
that basis because some people who do that who do follow what we do uh would like to get other people more engaged in it. Well, that's not my job as a select board member. It's the responsibility of the
individual. So, I I don't know. I have very mixed feelings about this one because I think we're setting a bad precedent if we if we open this up to the airport commission. And uh uh I I'm not sure that I really want to support this. But anyway, uh we've had conversation, discussion. Unless there's
more, I'll I'll entertain whatever motion somebody wants to make either on the policy or the airport commission. If you want to more discussion on this policy, it looks okay to me. If you want to add the airport commission or any other body, we have to have an effective date to be
reinserted in the policy. M >> but anyway, Stuart, go ahead. I mean, I agree with a lot of what has been said. The um you've already heard me. I won't repeat it. This is about uh just um I do think a lot of the information is out
there about the airport and people have a responsibility to take a look at that. This will only help that. And it's it's not displacing anybody. The room is literally empty. It means moving about 25 ft to that wall. And um I don't think
that's a big lift. So, I would uh I'll support the policy and I'd like to add the airport commission to uh to the policy. >> Is that is that a motion? >> Uh sure. Yes. >> Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
>> Point of order. >> You you can't Who is asking a point of order? >> Are you only a member of this body can ask a point of order? But make a point of order. But if do you have a question? If you want to frame it as please come to the
>> Thank you. Will this mean then that we will be the only statutory committee or commission that will be televised? >> Yes, I think so. Unless board wants to add others. One thing you could one thing you could do in the pol I'll get
to you in a second, Stuart. One thing you could have in the policy >> is to say that uh the board may from time to time um uh require nonregular other committees or commissions to um
televise their meetings and then you take a separate vote whenever you want to for the airport commission or whatever a body whatever other body. I just throw that out if you want to do it that way. But yes, and in as I see it, I think that's But Stuart, you had you wanted to comment on >> Well, I was just going to answer
Huntley's question. He and I chatted earlier um about relating to this and um you've heard I I disagree on that interpret interpretation because uh the airport
commission is a statutory as you point out correctly is a statutory uh commission. It has regulatory authority and that is I believe identical to the ones that are listed here in the policy. If where you're headed is are there others? Yes,
there are others. And I think I'd be interested in in if the facilities were available, adding the others to this. I think that the more public participation we can have, I think is a good thing. The chairmans have control of the committee. if it gets, you know, you've
pointed out some issues, hey, shut off the mic, tell them to leave. I mean, the the the chairman's control these meetings, so um I don't think that that will, uh be an issue. We're really literally about talking about moving from that meeting room to this meeting room, and it's empty. Thank you.
>> Does that answer your question, Huntley? >> Well, it does, but I I I still see this as a small group of individuals setting town policy. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, so there's a motion on the table that's been seconded to um approve the policy
as is with the addition of the airport commission as a separate category. I think that's >> Well, I was envisioning just adding to this list right here. >> So you're you're proposing that it it be listed as a regulatory commission >> only because it is.
>> Now, if you want a separate if you >> I'll let you guys if you hold on. I have the floor. I think if you're >> more comfortable >> making the airport commission somehow separate in this policy. Um but they'll still be I'm fine with that. I don't care.
>> Well, we need to have the motion clarified. I'm not sure which way I'm going to vote on this period, but >> Well, if like I said, I'm just trying to make it more palatable for people. So, if uh if that's more palatable, I have no objection to that. Um I'll I'll make the if you Well, well, we can listen to >> you want to speak to the I don't we're
debating the motion that was offered. Yeah, we are and I don't believe the airport commissioner ought to be listed as one of the regulatory bodies here in the town of Chadam. I think the policy can read at the discretion of the select board um a statutory uh uh committee
could be um could be televised >> directed >> could be directed to be televised. >> Want to make that as an amendment to your motion? And I I have certainly and I have no objection to that as long as the understanding is that the airport commission is going to be
>> Well, I think you would take a se separate that's fine. >> I'm fine with the amendment. >> Okay. The it's been amended and seconded. The amendment's been seconded. Okay. So, the motion is to adopt this policy with the language that Mr. Dykens
correct offered. >> Okay. And it doesn't specifically recite the airport commission. We'll take a second. We'll entertain a sec. If this passes, we'll entertain a second motion and we we'll put today's date in there. Cath Kathy, because that's there's a blank in there for the insertion of the
day. Okay, that clear. All right, I'll call call the role on this. M Miss D. Miss Davis >> I. >> Mr. Dyken, >> I. >> Mr. Mattis, >> I. >> Mr. Smith, >> I chair votes. I >> Now, does someone want to offer a motion uh pursuant to that authority? I would
like to make a motion pursuant to the authority we just enacted that um the airport commission uh um move their meetings from the little meeting room over here to this room here and it be televised. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> All right. Any discussion on that motion? I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyk. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes no. >> Four to one. It will be televised.
Okay. Thank you. Um the next item on the agenda is a discussion on the committee reappoint process for 2026. So Kathy, yes, >> this is yours. >> Yes. Um it's that time of year where we
are going to discuss what the select board would like to do regarding um upcoming reappointments. Um, as in January, I sent out letters to all town committee board commission members who
have terms set to expire June 30th, asking them to notify me of their intent to seek reappointment with the deadline of March 31st. Um, there are 81 members in total that are up for reappoint across all of the towns, boards, and
commissions and committees. Um, these numbers actually updated today. So there are 54 members expressing interest in seeking reappoint, six not interested and 21 members have not responded. Um so I've included um the part of the
handbook that discusses what is outlined for you know um interview processes and in terms of um incumbents and new um applicants which we do have a handful of new applicants for some of these um
seats. Uh last year we did do also a slate of all the advisory committees that did not have any new applicants and that seemed to go very smoothly to just say here are all the people that would like to be reappointed but there's no one um
seeking those seats either. Uh so I guess I'm looking for the board to provide some guidance on what you would like to do this year and who you would like to interview and how you would like to proceed. So last year you presented let's let's separate these into ad the advisory
committees versus the non-advisory committees. So the advisory committees we did not interview incumbent members who sought to be reappointed um unless and I don't think we had any circumstance >> there were I think two
>> where someone else was applying for the same position. Yes, >> there was no vacancy, but it was yes, >> someone wanted to be reappointed and there was an alternative candidate. So, we interviewed the incumbent as well as that. >> Um, >> that's one situation. Then we have the
regulatory commissions, the non-advisory commissions, we'll call it that. I'm sorry. Um but we've always this is this is where it means something story. >> It is where where um we interview we've had this policy forever where we have to
interview every incumbent of a regulatory commission which means we've interviewed Frank Msina 15 times or whatever. Um I keep throwing him out as the example but what we have how many of those do we have? Is it 26 you say? um
>> incumbent members of of regulatory boards that want to be >> of regulatory >> and we did include the airport commission in this. >> Six 7 8 9
10 11 12 Sorry, I'm just I didn't have that prepared but I can count. And the affordable housing trust was included too. >> 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 uh 213
24 about 26. Yes. >> So there'd be 26. >> They have they have asked to be reappointed. >> Yes. And some have some of them do have applicants um for those seats as well on some of those. >> What do we want to do?
>> Do we want to interview all 26 of these folks plus the applicants? You're you're talking about applicants for positions on regulatory committees
and where there are or where there are new applicants that we've never interviewed before. I think it's our responsibility to interview those folks if they're applying for >> when there are when there's an opening. >> If there's no opening, what are we
doing? We in >> Well, technically you could theoretically >> we could we could reappoint the the the new applicant >> and not reappoint the the current person. >> So, we've already >> I just want to avoid interviewing Frank Msina for the 16th time.
>> I just want to avoid it. It's it's just such a waste of our time. >> Stuart, >> I agree. It's it's I think it's a silly evolution that I've watched now for a year and watched since 20 years ago when it was instituted. I didn't understand it then. uh you know to to interview
people just for the sake of interviewing is literally a waste of our time and their time. >> I mean we could ex we could extract names that we might want to interview. Of course then you're singling somebody out >> but we do that with like the consent
agenda. You know we if somebody wants to >> bring something in on that we say I'd like to raise that. And I think that's the appropriate way if I had an issue with with somebody who was applying and but there was I I would have no problem saying, "Yeah, I'd like to interview them." >> Okay, Corey, you're not going to like
me. Um, for regulatory, I would I would almost interview everyone because, you know, Stuart hasn't had a chance to interview Frank 15 times, you know, and next year the new person is going to be able to interview someone. So, it's it's a big number, but it's not a
ridiculously big number. Um I would so I mean for regulatory I think we kind of have to do our due diligence. Does someone change their position? Is someone serving to the best of their capa capacity um capability? Sorry. Um
you know I just regulatory committees I think you know it's part it's part of the task we have part of our duty. >> What is your response to the suggestion that has been discussed here where we could pull a name out? you think someone's not doing their job or there's some question about it. >> Dan, I feel like we're being very
selective like it's we should do a kind of consistent policy. You know, why did I get pulled out? Do I have is there a problem? Why why are you interviewing me and not the seven other people, you know, who are applying for the committees? Um it's it's it creates an awkward creates a bit of an awkward
scenario. Um, we have But we have this conversation every year. >> I know. I know. I know. >> We wind up doing >> the same crazy thing every year, too. >> Shireen, you're going off. You're probably not going to have
>> I'm not going to comment on this, and I'll probably abstain from voting. >> You don't want to offer your >> no >> experienced advice. Well, I can say exactly what everybody else says is we ended up doing the same thing every time and it was mostly about not hurting
somebody's feelings by calling them in. But everybody's professional and that that's that's standard practice to do. And it might not be about having an issue with them, but more hearing more of substance about some of the work or what they feel might be an evaluation of
the committee. So, um I would you know >> what what if um an incumbent wanted to be interviewed, do we entertain that request? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Well, then we have just the context here is if if we were to interview all these 26, are we going to have some marathon? We had a marathon session or two last year. I didn't particularly care for it, but we did. and then we try to pile them on
uh for an hour before the meetings and have 4:00 meetings or 4:30 meetings and that makes it tough too. >> So my hope is after tonight to start since I have pretty much the list and you know if the select board would also like to consider those who did not respond. Am I considering them still for
are you considering them? Am I reaching out again? I mean they had from January 5th to March 31st to contact. Um, so I guess there's that piece, but I was hoping tomorrow to start with the ones who were yeses to start schedulings before to kind of do I think we can fit
comfortably three incumbents that you the board tended last year to get 10 minutes with the again because you've interviewed them all repeatedly. You were able to kind of move through those incumbent interviews a little faster. Um, so my hope was, you know, based on
direction tonight to start as soon as possible to get them before like the typical interview schedule before your regular meeting at 4:30. Have you or sorry, >> you've you've begun contacting some committees that have where people have not responded.
>> I did my last kind of reach out to those non-respondents prior to creating the report. So, anybody who had not responded has gotten yet another email, phone call, >> all of them. >> Uh, I believe so. Yes. I don't have my master like all my notes scribbled on
it, but yes. >> Yeah, I did. I mean, you and I talked the other day. I didn't know whether you had gone down the whole list or not. >> Yeah. And I did, you know, >> did my best to get through as many as I could. So, it was mostly all of the list except for maybe one or two people that
I think we were holding. >> Question. Yeah, >> whenever you're ready. >> Go ahead. I'm I'm fine. >> Um 21 members did not respond. >> Correct. >> Do we know that they got the notice? >> We don't. And that's another question. I mean, I mailed to them rather than email
and calling because I know my email sometimes like spam filters and my phone number comes up as a spam risk. So, I try to be cognizant of that. So, I initially started with a letter. Um, some people did acknowledge they got them late and I did get one or two of
like, oh, I just got it today, which unfortunately, you know, that happens sometimes. But the phone calls and emails I've emailed almost the ones that I've emailed, I had p previous email correspondents with. So hopefully they didn't end up in the junk filters, but yeah,
>> you never know. technology and the chairpeople of these 21 people have they reached out to the >> so staff liaison and chairs were notified that the letters went out to all of their boards and committees u most all staff liaison asked who was up
I think I have correspondence with almost all of them saying you know who do I need to notify but it was clearly um expressed to both the staff liaison and the chairs that it's that time of year I'm sending it now here's you know >> I mean Stephen Daniel on the finance committee he's quite diligent about.
>> So that one is an exception because it's the moderator. So I'm talking only the ones that are the select. >> No, I I understand that. But what my point was that Steven Daniel, the chairman of the finance committee, he re he polices his members as the
chairperson should and says, "Hey, you got to get your reappoint. You got to take your ethics test. You got to do whatever." Um, and those chairpeople of these committees should be doing that. I'm assuming they are, but I don't even know who they all are. >> Do I think I think does, for example, I
think he does that. >> Yeah, I don't know. You know, I'm not that all these, but I think that's important. Maybe we include that in our draft whenever we get to that. And are we talk just so the public is digesting this, >> are we actually talking about 54 members
have expressed an interest in seeking reappointment and we're going to be interviewing 54 people for this? >> No. So it would be tw So if you again take take that advisory column and the non-advisory when you split that out 26
of them fall in the non-advisory the rest that are advisory I would prepare a slate of incumbents as I did last year which the board seemed to >> um facilitate that process faster because it was just a list of all the names and those were the people as Mr. Dyken said
that did that were seeking reappoint um and did not have anybody seeking a seat >> competitor. A competitor. Yeah. >> Then well 26 is a lot. Never. So when they'll be my last question um when you
send these notices out and you say your point, do you copy the chairperson? >> Um so the emails were sent like snail mail. they weren't or the letters were sent snail mail. Um typically for reappointment like when they're sworn
like after you all take action. Yes. Uh the chair the staff leazison. So once someone's appointed or >> I mean these letters >> these letters um they were not copied like I said I sent kind of the >> like I've sent it and here's like a sample I think I sent like a a blank
sample of what the letter was without the address information. Um but they were all made aware. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to pull the feet to the fire of our chairpeople who should be who should be managing, directing, and uh their their members on their >> perhaps next year. I put a read receipt
on it so that I can definitely tell you who read it and who didn't. >> Um >> Jeff, just have a quick question for Kathy. Kathy, and you you do this administrative stuff. Do you see any ways we can be more efficient in in terms of doing our work? Do you have any suggestions? Any comments? Any
suggestions? I think moving to the slate was helpful last year and having that list. I think I'm happy to provide I have it broken down and I'm happy to give you the list of the like non-advisory committee members who are yeses um and compile you know any of the
committees that you know and break it out by who has >> um new applicants pending and who doesn't so that you have a more comprehensive picture. I didn't quite get to that for this report, but I can definitely provide that information for you as the board to decide. I think that
might be another area because I do think >> scheduling always ends up being the bane of our existence in terms of these interviews because there are so many and as uh chair Niccastro stated. Um it's it's a little difficult uh to get because I know the board likes to have
the full compliment when doing the interviews. Um so that might be another thing to look at. Do you really need the full compliment? if I can get two board members because that is what is required perhaps that would help um facilitate that a little faster. Um but that would
those would probably be my two biggest >> pieces. We we I don't mean to interrupt but we we try to um get the regulatory people in place because those boards have to issue permits and hear applications. We always hear about that.
Um as far as the how many of this board should be present we've sort of I think more than sort of I think we've established the the president it's in the policy I think that that for regulatory boards we want three of we want a quorum of this of this full board
here present so we don't have three people we don't interview someone for the zoning board or the planning board or those um but if we have it's just an advisory commiss committee um we require it to and that's the subcommittee. I
don't know if the board wants to make a change in that direction or not. They do it differently. I think in Haritch I I've read in the papers they have like a subcommittee on appointments and they make a recommendation to the full board. I don't think the full board interviews everybody.
Corey, I'm sorry. Um well, first no change. I think on a regulatory log we have a quorum. Three is fine. Two for advisory. It's worked. I think we're fine. A lot of times the majority of us are there. So it it it hasn't really been >> most of the time all of us are there >> quite often. Question on the 21 people
who have not responded. >> Is it um spread out broadly between all the committees? Is it heavy in one air one or two committees? Um and uh is it is it individuals who are served for quite some time and maybe they're not
sure if they want to continue? Like I'm trying to get a read of where we might be headed here. It's spread across the board. I mean, you have one junior member of the Affordable Housing Trust, but then you have um someone who has been on I'm trying to see if there's
somebody else in here that I haven't heard from. Um you've got some members of the Railroad Museum Committee that have been on for a while or um >> Yeah. Uh it's kind of spread throughout.
>> Okay. No, >> pretty evenly. >> These are not re non-respondents. >> Non-respondents. Yes. >> And I know at least one was kind of pending. They were trying to they had a family thing kind of they were waiting to see. So I I kind of have them start, but >> Okay. >> They technically count as
>> Can I take this in steps? Let's take the question first about whether we want to continue the practice of requiring at least three members of the select board to interview regulatory. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Yes. you know the the traditionally
considered regulatory >> committees and is that okay with everybody? >> Okay. And then two for any of the other committ um um we could ask whether the airport commission or and I don't we what have we done with that? We've I
guess we've never really had the problem. I don't can't recall we had a lack of a quorum of three on the airport commission. again for the most of our our interviews there's there's either most or all of us are here so yeah it's not been an issue >> so would we be continuing the practice
of interviewing uh say Frankina he seems >> well that that was going to be the next step the next question to resolve that's I wanted to get the the sure >> the quorum out of the way first so the sense is we would continue what we've been doing in that regard okay now the now the next question is what do we do
about the 26 people that are on these regulatory commissions that have um applied for reappoint. Some some of them might have a competitive a competitive candidate, a
competitor applicant. Some may not, most may not. >> I'm looking right now. I know there's the affordable housing trust has I believe one that I've seen that has and
it's like trying to also take into consideration the unknowns and the nos but um I know for a fact the affordable housing trust I know for a fact somebody had applied either for zoning or planning but I'm blanking on which
one specifically but >> what what if we ask Kathy to give us next week the list of the names these 26 people which committees they're on indicate which ones have other applicants and then we can decide
>> I know Corey you want to interview them all >> I don't want to think it's the duty because >> this board has this this board has you know not reappointed >> certain individuals you know who who don't have a you who um
don't have tested situation um because of one thing or another. So, I just like to have a a consistent policy. >> Do I I get the interviews that we do you have any question? No, you're good. Okay, good. We we we've done a dozens of
them. >> Would you be willing to defer the decision on this till next when we get the list? >> Yes. >> Then we can we can make you okay with that? I'm suggesting we get that list of >> That's fine. I was I guess I had another question. Sure.
>> I'm not sure I'm the originator of this. I think I read it. Um, so these people are up. When are they up for >> So their terms are all ending June 30th, 2026. >> So, um, they don't get reappointed.
They don't vote, right? I mean, >> they're off. >> They're off. >> Yeah. >> We got to do >> I mean, they show up in July to a meeting. >> Well, they they don't they can't sit up here, >> right? Right. in there wherever they're going to meet. >> I think that u I think >> they'll be notified that >> they're notified and the chairs and the
staffing are >> notified of the board. >> Yeah, the chair of the board is very important to get into this loop because they are ultimately in charge of this these >> but the chair the select board writes a letter to anybody that wasn't reappointed. >> Yeah, we have >> Well, they're not reading the they're not responding. I'm not sure they're
>> Yeah, that Yeah, they they wouldn't get a letter probably. So, anyway, >> show up. You can say I'm sorry. >> We send it. You're >> off. Open the chairs. We'll have better luck, I think. Okay. So, we'll we'll bring that one back next week and then we'll make a a decision as to what we would do with these 26. Did is there
anything else we need to know or do? >> Okay. All right. Uh time for the last motion of the night. >> It's a motion to adjurnn, Mr. Chairman. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded to adjourn. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dykins. Hi,
>> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. Hi. >> Chair votes. We are adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Good night, Cadam.