Thank you. --------- Good afternoon. I'm now going to call the Wednesday June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Norfolk County Commissioners to order. Welcome to everyone. I've got to read the governor's order on remote
participation. On March 28, 2025, Governor Healey signed into law House Bill 62, an act relative to extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during a state of emergency, which included a two-year
extension of the option for public bodies to hold remote meetings by suspending certain provisions of the Mass Open Meeting Law, Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, subsection 18-25.
That action was effective immediately, extending the current option for remote meetings through June 30th, 2027. Please join me in saluting the flag. Pledge allegiance >> [clears throat] >> to the United States of America, and to
the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Shea? >> I am present, sir. >> Commissioner Shea is present and in the chair, and we have a
quorum. Number three, no executive session today. Number four, minutes of last week's meeting. >> Mr. Chair, we are going to have to catch up on those in the coming weeks. Sorry, you know, work of administration budget's been
tied up with the Okay. state audit, so >> All right, so we'll postpone it? >> Yeah. >> Motion to postpone the meeting minutes. >> weeks and we'll have you something. >> Yeah. So, moved. I'll be advised. Okay, we'll postpone last week's meeting. >> postpone the item, Mr. Chairman? >> Yeah. Have to have a vote. We need to vote it.
>> Motions. I second the motion to postpone the minutes to a future meeting. All in favor? >> Aye. >> All in favor, say aye. Number three, appointments. Charles Cushing, facility director, Department mental update.
Chuck, good afternoon. >> Good morning, commissioners. >> How are you? >> Very well, >> thanks. >> Okay. What do we have today? >> Right. Just a brief report. Uh thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the maintenance
department. My last status report to you was back in late November. Since that time, I think it's safe to say that we've been through a challenging winter. In my last report to you, John Vignone had just left service here and the leadership
in the department was very much up in the air. And I thank you for all the trust and responsibility that you've given me over the last several months with my new appointment in the department. Staff of the maintenance department have been great throughout this transition,
as well as all the other departments. I'd like to take a moment to talk about the staff. We currently have 22 maintenance staff, one tradesman, and our office manager, Peg, and myself. We have all the members are healthy and working except for our office manager,
who's been out on a surgery recovery. But she's helping from home. We hope to have an electrician and a plumber in place before too long and the deputy facilities director role filled as well. The winter of '25-'26 brought
us two major snowstorms and several other events that totaled about 62 and 1/2 inches of snow throughout the county. Crew handled them all. We did lose two days of the courts being open, mostly due to the nature and the timing of the storms, but also the road
conditions getting to each location. We had warm buildings with all but one boiler making it through the winter winter at 100% uptime. Of the two boilers at the registry of deeds, one of them underwent a major rebuild during the winter. However,
the other one was able to carry the building through and um worked out well. With all the expenses associated with the removal and relocation and clearing of snow, I think we did a good job of keeping within our overall budget, you
know, unexpected boiler issues aside. Most of the crew have been recently certified in CPR and AED training, as well as blood borne pathogen training. And we are working with our vendor for the cleaning products to come in for a safety training refresher with the
chemicals. Uh Superior Court has had two AC units replaced that serve the main courtroom. We painted the civil clerk's offices, patched and painted areas in the main courtroom, painted the staff kitchen and the clerk's kitchen at
In April, we hosted a Harvard University law class who as part of the class were looking into the Sacco and Vanzetti case. They came out, saw the main courtroom, the jury deliberation rooms, and the cage that was used to hold the prisoners in the main courtroom until the 1960s.
We left the cage on display, not in the courtroom, until the uh Law Day celebration in May. The cage is now safely stored away until next year's 200th anniversary of the courthouse's opening. Planning for those festivities are beginning soon.
Um outside, the stairs and handicap ramp have been cleaned, power washed, and ready for repointing. You may notice that some of the paint on the railings have been peeling, and I'm in contact with the painting company that did the work a few years ago. We're working on a solution with a manufacturer for that.
Dedham District Court has the building management system up and running. We've been able to calculate a savings of 12% energy use. The BMS system is a great tool and we look forward to getting more of the courts online soon. District Court
parking lot bid documents are going out today and we hope to have a contractor in place by July 1st for the repaving project. Registry of Deeds building has had the smoke detectors replaced. The boiler that I was talking about >> [clears throat]
>> the front steps of those have been power washed and cleaned with a heavy-duty cleaner and are ready for repointing which will happen in the next 2 weeks. All the parking lots have been swept to remove the sand and salt after the winter.
Uh seasonal landscaping is underway. A big cleanup project here in Dedham was to address the hill area along Ames Street by raking and cleaning up the debris. Quincy Court is in its final few months of our management and we're waiting to
hear the plan for its decommissioning and when our staff can be reassigned to our other buildings. Over the winter our plumber did reroute the sewer lines to prevent backups and that system is working and no other issues have come up with sewerage.
We have an electrical contractor heading out there next week to disconnect the mobile trailer that's on site so that they can remove that. And the HVAC switchover from winter to summer went well. And with any luck, we won't be reconnected to heat ever.
Uh Brookline District Court has been getting a nice facelift. Criminal Clerk's office, Clerk Magistrate's office, Probation Department, Chief Probation offices have all been repainted. The judges lobby will be done next and the carpet in And of these areas will be
done over the June 10th holiday weekend. This building is also the next one that we've chose for the uh building management system. And we're looking to potentially get away from oil heat and bring in natural gas. Uh Stoughton District Court has a new
storage shed going in uh for the outdoor equipment. Uh and this will be giving them the ability to store the gas and the um lawn equipment away from the building. And free up some other storage for our
regular stuff. Uh Wrentham District Court, as you remember, had a bathroom project that was going ongoing. [clears throat] That's done. And since another underground pipe had to be repaired, then that's done also. Uh there were several steam heating
issues that we had cleared up. The steam traps over time had gone bad and were rebuilt. We did most of those replaced. Uh the front steps are undergoing a major renovation, resetting the granite blocks, and recaulking the joints as well, and giving them a deep clean.
Over the winter, our fence was damaged in the storm, and that was repaired this week. Uh this next month and a half, the World Cup will be hosted at uh Gillette Stadium, and we're communicating with the court staff, and we'll be ready to help out with whatever
they they need from us at that time. Uh this building, the conference room and the main office areas are largely done. Few punch list items for the cubicle vendor, and some electrical work for our new electrician to finish it off.
The Blue House has had a room given to the RSVP program for storage. We cleared, cleaned, and painted the room in advance of their shelving being delivered. And we assisted with the setup and of the shelving also. Over the next month few months, there
will be some additional interior work being done, patching, painting, and electrical, uh adding a fire alarm system. On the outside, we have our in-house carpenter working on the front steps. The rear porch and stair project is still in the design phase. We'll most likely be looking to hold
over some of the funds until the next fiscal year. We also went over to the golf course this winter to paint and freshen up the storage areas in the clubhouse basement storage areas along with adding some protective plywood
in the high-traffic areas, uh removing some of the older unused wiring and plumbing and fixing some plumbing repairs. Uh other than that, we're completing our daily cleaning areas and trying to keep up with the landscaping between the rainstorms.
Uh looking ahead, we're looking to do some sealing uh and painting of the rear of this building. Uh the BMS system in Brookline with the boiler or HVAC, however that works out. Uh the Blue House interior and rear
porch, parking lot maintenance, crack sealing, line striping, etc. Uh exterior painting again in Brookline, uh cupola restoration in Stoughton, and the main courtroom at Superior Court. That is all I have for you today.
>> Thank you. Any questions? >> Yes, Factor Man. >> Sure. >> Go ahead, Factor Man. >> Uh nice report. >> Thank you. >> You you you obviously taking full steam ahead. Uh couple of things. The uh AED we had talked about having them in every county building. Where are
we on that? We Have we got that done yet or we That's a goal for the new fiscal year? >> Yeah. >> We They have them at the registry and the courts all have them. >> It can't really be >> this building and then what the golf course? >> The golf course. >> Okay.
>> We're pretty pretty close there. >> Yeah. >> Great. And you mentioned Brookline would be the next one uh for the BNP. That's great. >> Yep. >> Any idea where Stoughton might be on that list? >> It would be in the next one. >> be in the next one. Yeah, great. That's fantastic. Uh that's good news. And um
Cuz those are savings. Each one represents a good savings. And we instituted that, right? And the paving, what's that going to start? >> So it's it's hitting the It's hitting the street today as far as the bidding goes. So as soon as we um get the bids back and do the uh
selection >> I want to hold on to >> contract. >> I could let's jump. I know Quincy will soon be off the books, but I think tomorrow they have some kind of important function. >> Mhm. >> And I remember last year it was extremely hot. Tomorrow I'm hearing a forecast >> What I did >> it's going to be another hot day. >> Well, whatever it is, let's
>> Is there any chance you can have some temporary AC pumped in like John did last year? >> From what I understand, the air is running. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. >> The way it's doesn't matter. >> I just want to give you a heads-up. >> Yeah. >> Cuz last year was extremely hot. >> That's right. >> And John brought in these portable units
to help out. >> So I haven't heard >> anything. Okay. All right. >> Thank you. We'll check. >> Let's go ahead. Thank you. >> Great. Everything. The commission is ready, man. Are you going to go to lobby? >> I I believe so. >> Okay. >> I'll be late. I got to house. >> Okay.
Okay. Any other questions for Chuck? All right, Chuck. Well, you're off and running. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That is >> Sure. Thanks. >> Item number six. Item number six, public comment. Every week at the commissioner's meeting
we have this time period for public comment both on the Zoom and in person. Anyone can comment and speak about any agenda item or pretty much any item they're interested in speaking about.
So if there's anyone interested in speaking, now is the time to come before us. Any of you folks interested in speaking? Okay. I don't want to leave you out. Did you get any notice of anyone wanting to speak? >> No, sir. >> No, sir. Good.
Last call for open comment at item number six. Seeing none, I'm going to move on to old business. We have none. Number eight, personnel matters for consideration. >> This is Sam Meskina. >> Meskina.
>> I'm going to do two things here. In the maintenance department Yep, in the maintenance department, I will approve of the appointment of Paul Lally as a foreman electrician at the rate stated, effective date 6/8/26. So moved. >> I'll second it.
Motion to appoint Paul Lally as foreman foreman electrician effective 6/8/26. >> Yes, sir. >> All in favor? >> I. >> It is deemed carried. >> Uh next group is for the Walter Recreational Facility. >> All right. >> Uh the first one is a notice, it's just
routine, notice of a name change uh for Alexander Hernandez as a seasonal golf associate, and its effective date 6/1/26. So moved. >> Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> It is a vote. >> The next three I'll group together with your permission.
Uh it's a notice of contingent employment for Patrick Brick, Neil McColl, and James Brundage as seasonal golf associates. Uh and they're all effective date of 6/4/26. That'll be tomorrow. Yeah.
So moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> It is a vote. Next. >> The next group is for the Norfolk County Aggie School. So first we have uh actually have several resignations. Must be that the of year. So I move
approval of the notice of the resig- resignation for the Lauren Durso as a substitute instructor at the rate stated, effective date 5 11 26. So moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> It is a vote. Next.
>> I just think I can group a couple of these together, Mr. Chairman, if you want. Move approval of the notice of resignation of James Ordale No, okay, that's it. Just James Ordale as a substitute uh flat rate, effective date uh 5 11 26. So moved.
>> Motion made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. It is a vote. It is a vote. Next. >> All right. These next two are student labor. Move the resignation of Allison Palmer and Emily Perron as student labors. And it's for the uh rate stated. It's
effective date 5 11 26. So moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> It is a vote. Next. >> All right. I have another notice of resignation for Christine Valico as a substitute instructor. And the effective date is 5 11 26. So
moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> It is a vote. >> And the last one, I have a notice of an address change for Benjamin Polito as a 183-day instructor. It's just the address change and it's effective, I
guess, change of the address 6 3 26. So moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> It is a vote. >> Let me make a motion to close the personnel. >> Correct. I have nothing else. Do you have the payroll and expense >> I have the payroll and expense
>> Okay, we're ready for the payroll and expense one. >> All right. Move approval of the warrant list for June 3rd. Uh first one, move approval of 26-48, the payroll of the county in the sum of $155,000 $385.79.
So moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. It is the vote. Next. >> Second, I move approval the expense for the county uh of 06-0126 the sum $55,451.35 so moved.
>> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> And last is for the welfare recreational renewal approval of 61-25 the sum $51,282 so moved. >> I'll second it. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. It is the vote.
>> That completes the warrant list. >> Thank you. Next. >> You're welcome. >> Next is number 10, renewal of an inter- municipal agreement for weights and measures inspections for the town of Wareham. We're going to have Bill speak to this. >> It's Wareham, not Wrentham. It's Wrentham. It's Wrentham. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, he said it was Wrentham. >> Yeah. >> It's Wrentham. Um the >> Is it Wrentham? >> That's okay. >> I'm sure I'm going to get corrected on >> Yeah. >> I don't want to be corrected >> Sure. I'd like to turn over to Bill, Commissioners. This is a renewal of a one of the original communities that joined our regional services program.
It's the Buckley will be on the list. >> No. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. As the director said, um it's hard to believe, but we've been doing this program now for 3 full years, and it's time to re-up with our original members. Wrentham was the second
community to sign a inter-municipal agreement with us for 3 years. They love what we're doing. It's working out well for them. They enjoy the service they're providing. So, we've been working with them. This was uh this IMA, like the last one, um you
approved, I believe, 2 weeks ago. The only thing that's changed is the dates. We're keeping every other aspect of the service level. Um and it's before you. It's already been signed off by the town manager of Wrentham. I think an action
before you would be to authorize the county director as your designee to sign on your behalf, but I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions, Commissioner? There's a copy of the extension here. >> Right. I did review it before the meeting. Just if I could, through the chair.
Um I There's no date on this bill, so what do Do we just leave it blank and then the chair We're going to direct the chair Yeah, director to go forward. Or do we want to put in there effective to this date? >> I I believe the effective date is July 1 of
>> It says [clears throat] it turns on page three, Commissioner. >> Okay. I was looking at the blank. >> July 1st, 2026, terminating on June 30th, 2029. >> All right. There's a space up to sign the day act actions on the >> Please do not use this. >> on the back.
Forgive me. My understanding is that we're keeping the rate the same for all that time. So, we're not increasing it. Saves us money. >> Correct. >> Six towns that we do it for? >> Yep. Right. >> Okay. So, no increase in rate. We'll continue to provide the service. And do [clears throat] we have three
other towns maybe coming on board you talked about? >> Yeah, so I think one of them will probably be before you before the end of this month. And we're working on a second, larger town in the center of the county. Uh perhaps in the next few months.
>> All right, great. Good. Okay. >> So, we're through a whole year already. >> Three years. >> Three years. >> Three years. >> It's a three-year agreement. Thanks. >> That's fine. I know. >> Okay. >> Seems like yesterday. >> Any other questions about renewal of our weights and measures
agreement with the inspections for the town of Wrentham? Bill, is there was no other reason we can't renew? >> No. >> Today? They've already signed, sir. >> For July 1st. Okay. I'll take a motion if you're ready. >> Wait, but you want us to authorize the
uh the the director of the county to enter into the agreement, correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I'll move, uh Mr. Chairman, that the county commissioners authorize the director of the county, Mr. Cronin, to enter into the intergovernmental
agreement for the services of sealer of weights and measures that would be between the county and Norwalk and the town of Wilton as outlined in this agreement prepared for us and reviewed. Effective date 7 1 2026.
So moved. >> And I'll I'll I'll second that. Last call. All in favor? >> I vote yes. >> I. Is your name two of unanimous? >> Thank you, Bill. >> Number 11. >> Nice job, Bill. >> Thank you, Bill. >> Thanks. >> Yep.
>> Report from the procurement department on bid openings and contract awards. Lauren? >> Nothing this week, sir. >> Nothing nothing this week. Okay. Number 12, report of the county director. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few items.
Um uh commissioners, there'll be an advisory board meeting uh this evening at 6:00 p.m. Um the meeting is largely virtual, but we've posted for some members to come here if they needed support. I believe we will have a few advisory board
members here at 6:00 p.m. Reminder, the Aggie graduation is tomorrow, June 4th at 6:00 p.m. I believe festivities are occurring for that. You probably have to pack it up. Right. Um as our facilities director mentioned, we are wrapping up uh several interviews.
You just approved the latest um hire in that department, the electrician. That's a great uh backfill. Uh we are proceeding with the deputy facility director interviews. We're wrapping up this phase uh tomorrow. We'll assess where we stand after looking at the candidates to date.
Um we're actively moving to close FY 26. I have a meeting um this Thursday with the fiscal team as well as Mr. Cushing to go over the status of all projects to see what needs to be reserved going in. Wanted to remind listeners to this call
that we're asking folks to deliver transfer requests to Phil Rantosca by Monday, June 15th. It will allow for timely placement on the commissioner's agenda for June 17th. Furthermore, there's a message from
Maureen Aquinnah, our CPO. Please email your reserve list to me no later than 12:00 on Wednesday, June 24th. If you have any questions on either of those, please reach out to Phil or Maureen. I think I just heard that there will be a AG trustee meeting a week from today,
June 10th. >> Right. >> And a reminder right before this meeting, Commissioner Shea and I received a call from Justice Cowan checking in. Always good to speak to him. He was looking to confirm attendees for tomorrow's Quincy parade. I believe you are confirmed and he will introduce
you tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Uh the chairman is otherwise occupied, so you'll be representing Norfolk County. >> All right. >> That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Great. Any questions to county director? Mr. >> Um no, that was all I had.
>> I'm fine. Interesting. Those uh Those are the ones you signed. Those are the >> I haven't signed them yet, hopefully. That's fine. >> Did you sign them? >> I did. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And is it where they directed you here from City of Quincy Flag Day Committee?
>> Right. >> This is the 250th anniversary of the city of Quincy. >> Mhm. >> Flag Day is about 80 years old. >> Okay. >> They really do a lot of fun things in I mean, you have to understand.
>> I think I I might be attending a wedding. I'll be in trouble if I don't go. It's not for me. of >> the We're going to miss it a while, but yeah. And my son's getting married, so >> Number 13, image >> I'm going to have to go. >> [laughter]
>> We're getting it fine. But thank you, though. Thank you. >> Emergency topics or item the chair did not reasonably anticipate would be discussed. I have none. >> None. >> I'll take a motion to adjourn. >> All right. Thank you. The clock is
right. I move we adjourn at 1:26. >> Motion now second that. This meeting is adjourned at 1:36. >> 1:26. >> 1:26. >> 1:26. Part: 2
Okay, I will call this meeting to order of the Norfolk County Advisory Board. Um the executive order on remote participation on March 28th, 2025, Governor Healey signed into law House 62, an act relative to extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during a state
of emergencies, which includes a 2-year extension of the option for public bodies to hold remote meetings by suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, General Law Chapter 30A subsections 18 through 25. That action was effective immediately, extending the current option for remote
meetings through June 30th, 2027. So, we will have the roll call next. Uh Phil, you on? >> Yes, I am. Can you hear me? >> I can hear you now. >> Fantastic. I'm ready. >> Okay, Gus, you want to call the roll?
>> Sure. Avon. >> Here. >> Bellingham. >> Here. >> Raintree. Brookline. >> Here. >> Canton. >> Here. >> Cohasset. Dedham.
>> Here. >> Dover. Foxborough. >> Here. >> Franklin. >> Oh. >> Franklin. Holbrook. Medfield, here.
Medway. Millis. Milton. >> Here. >> Needham. >> Here. >> Norfolk. >> Here. >> Norwood. >> Here.
>> Plainville. Uh Quincy. >> Here. >> Roo- uh Randolph. >> Here. >> Sharon. >> Here. >> Stoughton. >> Here. >> Walpole. >> Here.
>> Wellesley. >> Westwood Weymouth Wrentham >> One thing Phil, um we got a note that Charlie Ryan from Braintree is actually on and he said he's here. >> Here, can you hear me? >> Now we can hear you.
>> I can now. Yep, I got you. Sorry about that. >> I'd like to confirm I I don't think Carl from Plainville is here, but I I got a I got a noise that didn't say here. Just confirming Plainville, you are not here. >> Okay. >> Correct, he's let us know he's out of
the country, unfortunately. >> Got it. >> Okay, having said all that, we have a quorum 69.66. >> Say that again, Phil. >> 69.66 >> 69.66, so we do have a quorum. Okay. Let
me start with the Pledge of Allegiance real quick. Um Paul from Foxboro, would you lead us in it? >> The Pledge of Allegiance >> Okay. >> I pledge allegiance >> to the flag >> of the United States of America. To the
republic for which it stands, one nation with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, thank you. All right, we have one agenda item. I just wanted to want to chat about this real quick. Um as you may know, um the
registrar has issued a public letter um that was po- that was actually sent to media outlets. It was not sent to the appointing authorities as I originally thought it was. Um it was sent out to the Franklin Observer among other media outlets. And um
frankly, I when I read it, I it's it's a little I would consider it to be inflammatory. Um there are some is there are some things that were brought up in there that I think are completely false. Um some things that had a bit of truth to them,
but all in all, um it it I don't know if there's an agenda here, but you know, for far too long I believe that the advisory board has been silent on, um, on the attacks that we've had over the years. And we have been attacked multiple times both in person
and now in the court of public opinion. So, um, when I when I read that, I realized that maybe it's time for the advisory board to take a stand and, uh, and issue a statement of our own. I don't know where the, uh, commission does stand as far as whether they plan
on issuing a statement and maybe that's where we need to start. Um, but what I'm going to do is, um, I did send out a copy of a draft letter that we were looking at. This is strictly a draft. Um, along with the information on the
audit points that the registrar had was actually citing. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to open it up to the floor. What I ask is that everybody stay, um, muted and maybe raise your hand so we can just do so we can do this as orderly as possible. We do have some timers restraints here, so
I'd like to be done within an hour if possible. So, I'm going to ask you to keep your comments short, um, and to the point. >> Point of information. >> I'm sorry? >> A point of information, please. >> Yes. >> Are you referring to the letter at the
back of the packet dated May 21st? >> That's that's the letter that was sent out by the registrar. >> going to be dealing with? >> That's that's the letter you're talking about the letter that was sent out by the registrar. >> Well, it's at the back of the packet. >> Yes. >> Eric. It is, Paul. >> Yes.
>> Okay. That's the way I read it. >> Yes. So, I will, um, I'll open it up to the floor. Um, I don't know who wants to speak first. Gus, do you want to take your first, first shot at this? Or Rick, I mean, either or the
>> Yeah, I I'm I'm happy to to give you my first impression. Uh um, It may but run counter to some people's views, I I think. Uh There's I have a couple of bottom line thoughts. Let me just give those and then when we get more detail, if there's more to say, I'll say it.
This at the letter from the registrar, as written, basically directed criticisms primarily at the commissioners uh and secondarily at John Cronin and in his role.
Uh it it did not direct the criticisms, at least as explicitly, at the advisory board. Um as I look at it, for the advisory board I'll put it this way. This is a political bar fight between elected
officials, three commissioners and one registrar. Uh and I learned a long time ago that in bar fights that are being started by other people, the last thing you want to do is be the first one to jump in. It doesn't make sense to me that the advisory board is the first one to
respond to this. I certainly would be, you know, quite open to the idea of the advisory board supplementing anything that the commissioners themselves would like to say or do in response to the
registrar's communications, but I think for the advisory board to get out in front of the registrar uh in particular I front of the registrar more than in front of John, it conveys an impression or it weakens the commissioners because for some
reason, instead of the commissioners being allowed to speak for themselves and to take this direct charge on as commissioners, uh for some reason, the advisory board decided we needed to do it. And I think that's a tactical mistake. I'll leave that at that.
>> Okay. Um next Mr. Redden, do you want to chime in? >> Stand by. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Um Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been an ongoing problem. It
originated in 2020, I believe was the first time that this came up. And we are actually the respondent to a current lawsuit. And
I feel that we've done a great job of holding the line, but I don't think that we have pushed back hard enough. To be perfectly honest, if the register was an appointed
official and not an elected official and was held to the same standards as any employee of Norfolk County, he would have been fired by now. He has violated Massachusetts General Laws
a couple of times in particular. Others he has flaunted. It really is a situation where an individual has taken upon himself to interpret the law and interpret his role
in a way that is inconsistent with the with the financial practices of the county. This was addressed back in 2020 when the advisory board almost unanimously, I believe there was one abstention,
went back to the Massachusetts General Law and interpreted the statute regarding the D X size as it should have been interpreted. And since then things have continued to
escalate and there have been multiple issues across multiple years. And for me, I think it is time that the advisory board because we have been the subject of
all sorts of information and innuendo. If you look at the letters that have been sent to us, it really is a lot and we need to go back to our communities and show them that we are doing our job.
We are creating efficiencies in county government. We are ensuring that the laws are maintained, ensuring that our communities get the services they need, which is ancillary to this. But it's really important for us to be able to
address this directly now because it's gone on for far too long and when it escalates to a political campaign and I don't disagree Gus in a certain sense, but
he does address in the last paragraph of pointed officials and we are appointed officials in Norfolk County and I believe we should stand up for the hard work we've put in over the past few years in particular, but even before that and I also think that we should do
so in a way that champions county government. County government does a great deal for particularly the smaller communities in Norfolk County. Just this past week I was in Milton for Memorial Day and the town
administrator and I were speaking about efficiencies that the county can help with. So, I I it's important that we get it out there that county government is alive and very well if you look at the financials. And that one individual who happens to
be elected is doing something that is in my opinion something that has a lot of issues within it and it has cost the county a lot of money and we have
to a certain extent kept calm kept moving forward but at some point at some point this has to be stopped and I don't know
how others feel about this but I for one feel that addressing it head on is the best way to proceed at this point after so many years of trying to do it in a way that was a little more subtle. [clears throat] So that is where I stand
as a representative to the advisory board and I'm open to hear other people's opinions. >> Thank you Joe. And Phil, I just wanted to mention that I saw that Mr. Padula from Franklin has signed on. So he's on he's on this meeting as well.
>> Okay. >> Will only show up to do >> Um >> Joe Brennan >> Next. >> I lost Bill. Bill. >> Peric. Yes, Rick, go ahead. >> Yeah, you know, Gus, I appreciate your comments and >> [clears throat]
>> Joe as well. When when I first read this in the local Quincy Sun on Thursday, May 28th I kind of stood up on my chair and I said, "Well, boy this this is getting really kind of crazy." And
I think there's enough Joe, to your point, there's enough comments of both financial issues here and audit findings that certainly in my view in my city. In fact, I've reached I've
reached out to the mayor of the city of Quincy today. I wasn't able to to speak with him directly, but my second thought was if someone reads this and doesn't have background
other than what's stated in here I can see a city town administrator, a city mayor or someone that has appointed us as a member of an advisory board to kind of question
some of these things and really you know, kind of raise a raise an eyebrow as to you know, is this advisory board not really paying attention to things you know, are some of these things that
are being said factual? And if they are, you know, are they addressing them? And I think that's why I felt it was necessary not to attack in any way, shape or form. Not to get in a fight, Gus.
But to kind of make sort of a communication to again those that appointed us that really can maybe make them have some better feel about what's going on.
And uh that's kind of what the position I I took when we just you know when uh Eric, you know, kind of talked about addressing this. I mean, there was a part of me that again my hair kind of stood up and said, "Okay.
You know, this is crazy. Enough is enough." But I think the letter is written in a way I think it should be addressed to each city or town's authority for whoever's on the advisory board. Maybe
it doesn't have to be something that they want to choose to share uh for whatever reason personal to them. But uh I just think it's something that at this stage in the game in true transparency of government
and appointed people that we you know we respond. >> Thank you, Eric. Okay. Uh who wants to take the next uh next platform?
Liz? >> Yeah, I had a couple questions. Um part of the reason we've never responded to um the registrar's um accusations and uh uh rhetoric um
prior to this is because um our legal counsel did not think we should. So um I wanted to be sure that Scott thought that and there is the court case I mean the real decisive resolution here will be the resolution in the courts. And
once that is solved and the and the court rules on the law um around the interpretation of the statute. So I guess one of my questions is to make sure that our timing of a letter doesn't um
works with Scott's timing of the case. And to make sure that Scott thinks that there's nothing here that we're saying that in any way complicates the case. So that would be my one thought I had, just a question really. >> We um we did have Scott look at this
letter. Am I correct uh director? >> That's correct. Um and he did not find anything that was um inflammatory or that would hurt our case. Um I wanted to just build real quick on on one of the points that Rick made. You know,
believe me, I'm the first one that every time I get one of those letters, I actually do read it. And the first my first reaction is to get on my keyboard and pound out something to him, which I've been very I've been restrained for a long time on this. But I think when
all this changed is the day that we all received subpoenas individually at our homes by the registrar. You know, that to me went a little far. And that just kind of like Rick said, raises the the hairs in
the back of your neck. You just want to do something to defend ourselves. And maybe, you know, the the point is that we don't send it out to the media outlets, we send it out to the appointing authorities. And let them know that we're serving our communities properly. Does that answer
your question, Liz? >> That helps a lot. I do I do agree that it really should go to our appointing authorities to inform them that this was sent to the media outlets by the registrar, and it's we feel that it's important for them to have the facts. >> Yeah.
>> Um and I think that is the appropriate response. Not not to start trying to litigate things in the media. I don't think that's going to help anybody, actually. >> Right. >> timing, Scott, didn't I I I guess my question is I just want to make sure Scott didn't think there was an issue
with the timing, cuz I know he's in he's really thick in the case right now. So, I just don't know I just wanted to make sure that it was the timing was okay, also, from a legal perspective. He didn't comment about that, John? It sounds like he didn't feel there's any worry about that. >> No, there were no there there were no
negatives um from from Scott's office about this. >> Okay. Yeah. Then then I I actually I think we've held back a lot. I think actually we've exercised a lot of restraint. And um I think it's probably time for us to at least let our appointing authorities know that what the register is sending out is just
hogwash. Yeah. >> Eric, Eric yes. >> Helen wants to speak. She's on the line. >> ahead. I'm so I'm sorry, Helen. >> Thank you. First of all, some of the comments that Dr. Charles Race are important. And
uh having been an attorney since 1977, what I've learned is that this issue is based on facts and facts are determined in a rational
court of law. Um we are still America. We still have the right to send out a letter. We still have freedom of speech.
And uh I think that we are being used. This awful lot County Advisory Board is being used to get involved in this issue. This is an issue that should be determined by the parties in a court of
law. >> So, Helen Doy, am I am I correct in saying that you are not in favor of sending out any kind of a of a communication at this time? >> Yes, you're you're correct in saying that. >> Okay, thank you. >> Eric, Joe McCrisky. Yes. >> Joe.
>> Yeah, I I I want to agree with a couple of the previous speakers, Eric. Uh I'm an elected official. My colleagues have voted me to serve on the Advisory Board. They've never asked me about this, nor has anybody ever asked me about any of this other than people
connected to it. Um I would support doing something following as it was the comment made earlier, following any action of the commissioners. And if we wanted to do something after that where we put out a comment
that we would do to the appointing authorities. I don't know how many people in my town this not even being talked about. Nobody's ever mentioned this to me and I've been around a long time. If somebody got a question they're going to ask me. So I don't know how it's affecting other communities
to me it's a sort of a let the sleeping dog lie. I mean unless there's a reason for us to do this. It really let's let the commissioners lead it because it is more of the involvement with them. There's some there's some things going on here that I think you know could backlash on other
people that have initiated a lot of these things you know just in the professionalism that I've experienced you know and how it's handled. But I just don't know if it's right for us as the advisory board to get involved this time. I would follow the lead of the commissioners and the and the director
if there's a reason for us to do that. I don't know anybody else. Has anybody in your communities ever asked you what's going on with this issue? So I can't see putting that information out where we confusing for our residents of our individual communities. If we put
that out there we may be opening up something we don't want to open up. It's just my two cents. >> And that bolsters Gus's comments from earlier. >> Right. >> Right. Okay. Mr. Mr. Pedulla I know you are on. I believe you wanted to make a statement
as well. You're you're muted. There you are. >> How's that? So >> Here you go. Hi Peter. >> Hi and I been listening to getting the publications from Mr. O'Donnell for a number of years and my opinion is always been
I wish we started responding to these back a while ago whether it was the commissioners or whether it was us as a group. I think it should have been responded to. I've gotten a number of calls over the years when Bill puts out a letter, I get a phone call. Um
Um that person one of the persons recently retired, but I get regular calls from different people about these letters that come out from Bill. So, people do pay attention to them. And I think there's a real harm in letting people make all these comments which are
I think that they're uh largely inaccurate in some cases, and they have some facts kind of put in, but like any good lawyer when these things are written, um it's just it's confusing, but some it's just not it's not uh a real clear picture of what's going on.
So, um I I think it I think the this correspondence needs to go out. Whether it goes out initially from the commissioners to uh our local boards, because I think that at some point I'm going to be speaking all my people on the on our
town council to let them know what what my feeling is of what's going on. So, I think it needs to go out. Is there a problem why it can't go out from the commissioners uh to uh uh to our local uh board of selectmen and town councils?
Is there any problem with that? >> That's a good question, Peter. I don't I don't know that we've actually explored that, and that might be the the uh maybe that's the action we take is to go to the commissioners and ask them to issue the statement. And then again, to Gus's point, we could add an addendum to that,
you know, um or or even a couple of paragraphs to it. I don't know if that might make more sense. Um John, do you have any insight about that? >> Can I finish my piece if I could just >> Oh, I'm sorry, Peter. >> But that's okay, because I'm an appointed official, right? So,
the this letter speaks to me as well. It's a when elected and appointed officials. So, the the commissioners are elected. So, guess who's appointed? You're appointed, I'm appointed, and everyone else on this board is appointed officials. So, that letter is pointed
squarely at us as well. So, I don't have a problem with at at some point it's going to come out. Maybe it comes out from the commissioners. Maybe it's a joint. I would like that any place that this letter comes out should also have its rebuttal. Should see the same piece.
But, make no mistake, the last paragraph, everyone sitting on this meeting now that's a that's on the Norfolk County Advisory Board on county expenditures, we probably should clean that up in our letter here, um is appointed. And this speaks to you
as well. So, yeah, you're all you're all in the crosshairs, too, on this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Peter. >> Uh Eric. >> Yes. >> It's It's Mike Bellotti. Uh can I offer anything right now? I know or is this just Advisory Board kicking
this around? >> Um I don't have a problem with you offering some advice. >> I appreciate You know, my my experience in my other positions, uh you always turn how to react to these things. And you you tend to just not react because uh you elevate it, especially when you
think that somebody is you're not getting your side out there. And then there were times when I didn't react whether I was being sued. I was probably the most sued person in Norfolk County, you know, at the jail, honestly. And and you and you we managed that very conservatively like
how we handle things. But, there were times when I thought, you know, I have to get something on the record because this is the third time and a good lawyer will always tell his client, cuz we always had either an in-house lawyer or somebody with a specialty around a particular lawsuit,
uh for your your best chance of not undermining your case with a judge, you can't say anything. But, unfortunately at this point, this is uh this is a public relations problem with stakeholders, even though most are our neighbors and no one I know
talks to me about this stuff. Nobody. Even uh you know uh insiders in Quincy politics uh they never talked specifically about any of this type of uh information coming from the from uh Billy. Um but it's getting to the point now where even
if it's a letter from the commissioners and somehow you folks can support it. Uh if that's what you think is the right thing. Uh and even if it just goes to the town administrators and mayors at least somebody threw it something and something's on the record. Cuz a lot of this can be explained just with we're in
litigation right now over these particular issues. Which is not a great look, I don't think uh for the register if if cuz anyone in our business knows, okay, if there's litigation going on, then even if uh
uh the register is right uh what he's doing might be beyond what you know, most people consider in elected positions or appointed uh be beyond a really a fair approach because it's all going to be answered in court, at least most of it. Uh
and I also um uh I think that's all I have. It's just I think at some point something has to be in writing on the record. It doesn't have to be inflammatory. It doesn't have to be hyperboly. And it can be most explained away about how the litigation
has been going on for a few years and these issues will be wrapped up at some point. So that's what I got to say. >> Okay, Mike. Thank you. And and I think to Joe's point, I believe Joe made this point earlier. You know, whether there are a lot of people
who don't are not aware of county government and how it runs. You know, when you put something like this out, when the register puts something like this out there with no rebuttal, then as far as I'm concerned, we're leaving it up to the court of public opinion to assume that everything he's saying is
correct. That's probably the reason why I wanted to to have this meeting. >> And Eric, one more thing, because of what's going on with the sheriffs right now, there's a real misnomer about what county government is. If you read the comments
on the IG's report and the globe and other places, you people say, "Geez, why do we have county government?" Well, the sheriffs aren't even technically part of county government. They're there because of the jurisdictional reasons and statutory reasons. So, people kind of conflate county government whenever it
comes to DAs and sheriffs and obviously commissioners are county government, I'm county government. Billy's elected to a county position. So, as you know, we could get swept into a lot of discussions that don't affect us because of what's happening with the
sheriffs. And and you know, you might even have some legislators that don't fully get it cuz different counties exist and some counties don't exist for the most part. And they might just start thinking about this thing as one big ball of wax. And then they see this
and you know, if there's any other type of I'm not saying the globe will pick up on it, but you just never know. You at least want to make sure that you've answered this. That's again, that's the last thing I'll say. >> All right, Mike. Thank you. All right, members from the of the board, any uh
further comments? >> Paul Drew math >> Paul. Yeah, I'm sorry. Paul, go ahead. >> Uh first of all, uh I want to apologize that uh you know, I'm really kind of in the dark. I might be the only one on the ad
column that you know, I doesn't know the history of recent years with with stuff like that. Uh Uh those on the ad column who don't know me from when I served before, I had a 40-year postal management career, all kinds of stuff like
arbitrations, being sued, I sued, uh mediations, uh things like that. I was on the Foxboro School Committee. similar >> [clears throat] >> the I found one
would be would not support that we send a letter from our board unless it was properly vetted by our lawyer. We went and hired a lawyer just like the commissioners to
protect the county. And so if we if we have you know a a person or two that's you know you know a good literary person uh you know we we need to get legal before we send anything. Because whatever you
send could wind up in court. It will if I mean if he if he goes forward it's going to wind up in court. So you want to you want to get counsel uh questions uh extends one of the complaints about
the legal costs that have been spent to date. So uh now I found in my postal career a process called mediation squared away not wasn't always
successful but frequently enough on some stacked conflict with people that really didn't care for each other. You know and so I'm wondering has there been any talk about the commissioners
and the registrar you know being in mediation? And of course there's three of them and one of the registrars so maybe he might want to bring his number two. I I don't know but but I I think you know before we get into bunch of
legal stuff and and and getting a team together to get a you know, a group response, that that might be something something to something to look at. Has it Has it ever been entertained before?
>> No. >> That's the voice of reason. That's very reasonable. If you look at number one, that's court material right there on the on the letter, the proposed letter. Number one, that's going to be in court. That's a great idea.
>> The uh >> Mr. Chairman, we're here to help. >> There's a There's a There's a federal There's a federal mediation service that uh They work in the federal government, the postal service. I know they were
involved in a stopping shop strike. Uh they can go into any venue, and it's a it's a low-key thing, and there's no harm, no foul, because if the parties agree to go to mediation, everything that's said there is
confidential, and when it's over, uh if there's no agreement, then none of it can be used. So, I think it's a I think it's worth well, further thinking about, and maybe
see if the parties in in involved could could could do that. Uh I I I have a thought this year. Bear with me. I think I made a couple of notes if I can read my my writing. Uh The
audits. Uh How many audits uh have been Are we doing annual audits? You know, and what do they What do they show in terms of deficiencies and stuff? Is Is any of that stuff in the audit
included in this letter? I don't know. Uh I mean, have Has the Does the AdCom get the audits or does just the commissions get them? >> They're public. >> Yeah, the audits are public record.
>> They're on our website. >> the last fiscal year >> [clears throat] >> ended in June of '25. Has that audit been completed? >> That's That's what happening right now. Which it typically does right about now. We're meeting with the auditors. So,
we're right on time for that one. >> Did I Did I hear that this goes back to 2020? >> Yes. >> What about the other audits? Was there any any notoriety on any of any of them?
>> Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd I'd like to respond. >> John. >> No. >> Go ahead, John. >> Thank you. Um to the gentleman's questions, first, yes, mediation has occurred between the county commissioners and Register O'Donnell.
Mediation was undertaken by a retired Supreme Judicial Court member, Judge Tierney, and the Register, his attorney, and the county's attorney in 2023. The outcome was not successful. There was no agreement. Regarding your
question on audits, all our audits are public as the Treasurer just indicated. They're on our website, sir. Every audit has some degree of dust on it that requires tighter controls, and we are no We are not exempt from that.
The information that the Register put in his letter corresponded to two different audits, sir. We gave in your packet excerpts from the audits that described the context of the remarks that were made in the Register's message. I hope that's responsive to your
questions. Thank you. >> Well, you know, um Well, I guess I guess a follow-up uh Mr. Cronin is if the mediation was in 2023, that's 3 years ago.
Is it worth another shot? >> Definitely. >> So, I mean >> Well, I guess that's a question for that that would be a question for the for the commissioners. >> Yeah. >> Because obviously we put in these all in the mediation. >> Ask Eric. >> Sorry? >> Were the commit Eric, were the
commissioners invited to this meeting? >> Were they invited to this meeting? No. >> [laughter] >> I mean it's a it's a posted meeting. They're they're more always more than welcome. They're they're usually at our meetings anyway, but they weren't specifically
um invited to this. No, sir. Okay, um I know we have a couple other people that want to speak, and I know Karen from Needham, I know you're on a time constraint. Do you have anything specific that you would like to speak of? >> Um I would be in favor of uh I would not
be in favor of sending something to all media outlets. We don't know uh where who printed it and, you know, it it would make cause people to wonder what what what the initial letter said from the register.
Um I I would be okay with sending something to the um appointing authorities. >> Okay, thank you. Um I know Gus has had his hands up, and I believe a few other people have also um Mr. Kirby. Is there a
>> I think Mr. Calcutt's hand is up. >> Yes, Calcutt. >> Do you combine Calcutt and Murphy? >> for one person, so that was a little difficult to navigate. >> Uh so, you know, when I was appointed to this body the first time in 2020, I was
serving as a member of the Norfolk Select Board. And to be honest with you, I did not know much about what went on in the context of this body, even though I was appointing somebody to serve on it every year. Um I believe that there is an inherent value to reporting back to our
appointing authorities as to what we're doing, how it's being done. And maybe they do nothing with that information, but they know that there is work being done on their behalf. And if something does come up where they're questioned by the public, they're able to identify why they're making the decisions they make to send
us back here every year. You know, from my position I noodled on this for a while last night, and from my position, we're like an independent financial oversight body for Norfolk County. And you know, >> charter is. >> Yeah, and and so from that perspective,
I feel like our responsibility is to the county expenditures, not so much to the political back and forth that is obviously going on right now between the county commissioners and the register. I know that in his recent letter, he did reference us in a secondary capacity
there at the end as the appointed officials that are apparently contributing to the wasteful spending going on. Um and I'll leave my own personal feelings about some of his claims and what's transpired since 2020 when I joined. Uh but I think in the context of our scope and what we're responsible for,
our duty is to address what was said back to our appointing authority, and let the county commissioners respond publicly to whatever the register has put out there publicly. Um I think that's serving our best interest. I think that's serving the best interest of the public, and I think that's serving the best interest of
those that depend on us to be able to make these decisions on their behalf. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I know Gus, you have a question. Dr. Child, did you also have a question? >> No, actually John Croner responded. I just was I was going to respond to Paul
about that we've done mitigation and we've and we and the auditor public. So, John already said that. So, that's all we need. >> Okay. All right, thank you. Um Mr. Palito, um Gus, well, you've already spoken once. I'm going to give Tom Palito a chance to to to chime in. So, Mr. Palito, the
floor is yours. >> Thank you. Uh I I believe it I with multi with with our Gus, uh I don't know how many uh papers printed this these that I go from the from the register, but I haven't heard in my area
nobody talks about it. But, my board of selectmen town manager know what's going on because I I frequently talk to them. But, some of the statements in the uh you think the letters correct. I think a lot of it is incorrect uh letter. I mean, waste of money. First of all, and you were talking about
the lawsuits, okay? People think if you read it, the the register is appealing the case. It should be if you more clear. The the the commission is appealing the case. They're the cost of taxpayers' money. The commission has done it. You lost the case
to the register deed. Two cases, one Supreme Court, okay? So, I'm saying so, if you're going to say, you know, it's costing county money, make sure you put down the the commission's appealing the case, not the county uh not the register deed uh
person. So, that's one thing that should be cleared up anyway. Uh and you know, and some of your responses I couldn't disagree with more. Uh you know, it's it's uh you losing cases, you losing cases. It's a guy from Norwood losing to a
winning from a big law firm Boston, okay? So, maybe we should look at that issue also. But, I just think we're we're we're back up the what you want to send letter to the uh to uh to the boards and >> [snorts] >> in the uh uh town manager, I have no problem with
that because I'll go in front of my board and put what I think of the facts that are in these facts is what I in my opinion are not true. Some are true, absolutely. But I think I think you're really skirting skirting the uh the the uh real truth behind these answers. We waste money. Uh
I mean, as Dr. uh Childress said, we're stewards of the funds. Well, all the money is spent on on lawyer bills. I don't think we're being good stewards of the funds right there. We're wasting taxpayers' money. It's it's all the I think this thing was filed over those two women of
30 I'm on 30 years in the job but he didn't dot every I and cross every T to keep uh to keep Cronin happy, okay? So, that's where it style, I think. I mean, the money's another issue. The uh the uh the uh splitting money, I'm not I'm not much involved in that but I think, you know,
at the last meeting, he asked for certain things to be done and the money, he said, he's going to put $50,000 more to uh bring these people in, depose them and he else. We're we're wasting more money. At the end, when I was at that court that day with the judge, "If you don't
do it, I'll do it." And and just how she talked, she's not for the county. She'll she'll overrule the county and get these two appointed. >> Okay. Well, point point taken, Mr. Palito. So. All right. Um Gus. You're You're muted, Gus.
>> Yes, I am. I I clicked it twice, I guess. I I have just a couple brief comments and I was I just wanted to clarify from the comments that that you allowed me to start off with. Uh just to make make clear, I there's nothing in my points that I made earlier that said I don't
think a rebuttal to this public statement should be, you know, need I think that needs to be made. The point I was making there is that I thought the commissioners are the ones who actually have the lead responsibility to make that rebuttal in whatever ways they see appropriate. Uh and that if we got out
in front of the commissioners on that public rebuttal, I think that's an action that actually weakens the commissioners cuz for some reason you know the county advisory board felt it needed to get out in front and do something presumably cuz it didn't think the commissioners would. In
the in that context, if there's a role that the the advisory board can play by either submitting either supporting that statement and and adding things or or refining some of the points and cosigning it if the commissioners want us to do it, I think that's fine. Or if
the commissioners could could benefit from a supplemental statement from the advisory board that was really focused on particularly the charges around financial management, I think that's appropriate. In this discussion though, one of the things that's come out is that this might be a letter that goes to
the appointing authorities that we have. If If that changes the context of my view on this, if in fact this is a letter to go to the appointing authorities that put us on this advisory board in the first place, then this is a letter that's intended to assure the appointing authorities that what we're
doing on the advisory board is what we should be doing. If that's what the letter's for, then I I I would support the idea of putting that letter forward if that's the intended target. But I still think out there there's a public relations challenge that the county and and in particular the commissioners face
that I'm just saying I don't think we want to get out in front of. Thanks. >> Thank you, Gus. >> Can Can I say one thing? >> For anybody that has not spoken yet, is there anybody that that wants to address both that has not spoken yet? Charlie, you've been you've been
uncharacteristically quiet. >> Um I'm just listening. um, I I kind of, you know, agree that maybe this might be a better letter coming from
maybe staff. I don't know if John Cronin should should send this letter out. I mean, it's, you know, talking about the county finances and how the kind county finances are being wasted and maybe coming from the full-time person,
um, it might be better coming from him. Um, and if it went to, um, you know, the boards of selectmen or, you know, if in Braintree if it went to Mayor Joyce, just send it replied it to the folks that we think the letter went out to. I
I wouldn't send it to the um, any media, but that's kind of I think the people that brought that point up make a good point, um, on the, um, you maybe maybe John sending it out. Thank you. >> Thank you, Charlie. Helen?
>> a question for you, Mark. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute, Paul. Wait a minute, Paul. Helen had her hand up behind you. Go ahead, Helen. >> Thank you. Question, please. What was the date of the last mediation? >> John? >> Uh, the uh information I have was around
May of 2023, Helen. >> [clears throat] >> What? >> May of '23. >> Thank you, I heard it. Thank you, Robert. What is the date of the two court cases that Bill O'Donnell has won? What dates do those decisions come down?
>> Um, I I'm going to have to, um, retreat and get that information and circle back to you, Helen. It's buried in a file cabinet. >> That's great. Thank you. That's very, very, very important. Um, the fellow from Foxboro brought up an important thought part about the mediation. In this proposed
letter, there are there things that may be right and may be wrong. So, I have an idea that if we I'd like to make a motion that we
tell the parties, the commissioners and the register of deeds, that we tell them that what we want is for that to go back one more time for a large mediation firm
and and mediate and then after that as see what the result of that mediation is. And then at that point, that might be a good point to send a letter to the selectman or the mayors, whoever appointed us. That might be.
But Helen, I >> Helen, I guess excuse me, I haven't finished. >> I apologize. >> That that's that shouldn't be opposition to alleged facts that may or may not be right. I don't want to be any part of
making the allegations that may or may not be correct. >> Did you make the motion? >> Yes. >> I'll second it. What what is Well, let me ask you this question before. So, you're you're making a motion that we that we advise the commissioners to go back to
mediation. >> Right. >> And although I don't know that we have the authority to do that. >> all the parties >> I don't know that we have the authority to do that. We can make a request to them, Helen, but I don't think we have the authority to demand that. >> No, I didn't say demand. I didn't say
demand, sir. What I said [clears throat] was I suggest that we invite them to go back and it one more time. And in the event that that they don't then at that time
that we send a letter to the selectman or mayors, but not with all kinds of facts in it that can be right or wrong cuz I don't want to set anybody up in the court of lousy facts. And I have a second on my motion.
>> Okay, so there's a motion and a second to send a letter I guess to or to notify the commissioners and the register of deeds that the advisory board would like them to go back into mediation. >> Right. >> So we have a we have a go ahead Dr.
Childs. >> Are you opening it up for discussion? >> I am opening it up to for discussion. >> I just I just would like to remind the advisory board that it actually was our our recommendation that we go into mediation. We initiated that through our attorney um
and our attorney was very determined to try to solve this without a court case and to do the mediation and actually brought in a very skilled former SJC justice to do it. Um and was quite
disappointed when it failed. And that was that that there were there were many months of efforts to really make that work and it was it was not a small effort. It was it
took a lot of time, commitment, legal cost and and I would say that we were the ones who really wanted to do that. I do want I did I thought that was really important background for people to have. >> You respond to your sir.
>> Thank you thank you thank you Dr. Childs. >> That's the past and that's the case but that doesn't that was before we had additional information. Since that time we have two years at least or two and a half years of
additional new information, conduct and facts. We have a new case based from old mediation. And I'm not saying the mediator wasn't good. No, I never said that. I'm just saying we have a different additional facts.
>> Thank you, Al. >> discussion >> Mr. Chairman >> Peter >> Please, thank you. Um I couldn't disagree more. I think the fact that the mediation was taking dealt with by people who really know what they're doing. It didn't work. It It be
It's an absolute total waste of time as evidenced by the fact that there's been litigation since then. So, I couldn't have disagreed more and I will absolutely The motion passed goes to the floor. I will absolutely not support it. And as far as not holding back on making a response to
this thing, the time for the response is now. Not 6 months or a year from now. I want to tell you, things keep being said that are incorrect and everybody knows it. And I don't think I read through the letter twice. I don't see any inaccuracies. I have a hard time
thinking that Mr. Cronin's going to put something out there that we all have and even queries about where the audits are. It's in the letter. You read it. It says, "Here's the audits. So, go look at them." So, I will certainly If it If it gets any further, I will certainly vote
against it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Peter. All right. So, we have a motion >> I have a question. >> Yes, Paul. >> Not related to the motion, though. But >> I got a question that's a a fast question to you. >> Hold on. Tom, hold on. Paul has the floor. >> Uh
It's not My question isn't related to the motion. Good deal with the motion. >> So, so we'll move on. Tom >> Yeah, just >> Is your question related to the motion? >> Yes, yes. It When When When the When the uh uh lady from Norwood asked the the question about mediate, what would you
be What would you be mediating? The court cases we lost or I mean What's going to be immediate? The That's the issue I have. You know, that it's in court being appealed. Are you going to mediate that or something different? I just want to know what you're going to mediate. That's all I'm trying to say.
That's the question. Can somebody explain that to me? >> Can I try to answer that, Eric? >> Well, I think the question is experience in life. The parties The parties that aren't getting along >> Hold on for a second. Okay. Paul. >> And hopefully finish.
>> Paul. I believe that question was directed towards Helen. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Because she made the question. >> Um I agree with the representative from Foxborough and I think that it's not uh it's not a fact that they've had a
mediation before. What we have is we want to settle the case now. This has gone far enough. We want to settle it and we want to settle it in a way that we can go back to being one of the best
counties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And uh I've been around here now and when we started out, we were friendly and kind to each other and and uh everyone got along. This is We used to have this, we used to have that, we used
to represent the Every dime on the budget was considered and it's time now for us to patch things up and to and to come to an agreement and to uh work things out. >> Thank you, Helen. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman
>> Dr. Dr. Child. >> May I May I call the question, please, Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. All right. So, we are going to go to a vote on Helen's motion >> I somebody called the question. >> to send I'm sorry. >> It's been seconded.
>> It's been seconded already. >> But they called the question. So, that that means you need a >> Just a vote. >> It's a vote. >> On the call the question. >> And Liz did. Liz called the question. >> Okay. So, we're going to vote on that first. >> So we're >> We have to vote on calling the question. >> So we So we're voting on calling the
question first. >> Yes. >> Phil, do you let us know when you're ready. >> Sure. Give me a second. I need to rename something. So what are we calling this? Calling the question. Moving the question. >> Moving the question. >> I I learn a new thing every time I do
this stuff here. Moving the question. >> Calling. >> Moving or calling? >> Calling. >> She's moving. >> Moving. >> Same thing. You're losing me. >> Just vote on the [ __ ] thing, you idiots. >> Whoa. That's nice.
>> that? >> But that's nice. >> Real inappropriate. >> Uncalled for. >> Who is that? >> Who is that? >> Oh. >> It's a butt call. >> Okay. >> What is >> Same person.
>> Okay, I'm ready. >> All right, got you. You ready to do this? So this is to call the question and to go to a vote on Helen's um amendment or on Helen's motion. >> Motion. >> Okay. Avon. >> No.
>> Bellingham. >> No. >> Again, to be clear, this is on calling the question, not voting on Helen's motion, right? So if you don't want to call the question, you want to keep talking about it. Okay. Uh Braintree.
>> I. >> Brookline. >> I. >> Canton. >> Yes. >> Dedham. >> No. >> Foxboro. >> Yes. >> Franklin. >> Yes. >> Medfield, yes. Milb- Milton.
>> Yo. >> Sorry, guys. Yes. >> Uh Needham. >> Yes. >> Norfolk. >> Yes. >> Norwood. >> Yes. >> Quincy. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I I'm I'm skipping over anybody. I I'm doing this the wrong way. Sorry, you guys. I won't I'll fix
that from here forward. If I skipped over you and you're farther in front of the alphabet than Q, Pelham. Randolph. >> Yes. >> Sharon. >> Yes. >> Stoughton. >> Yes. >> Walpole. >> Yes.
>> Wellesley, Westwood, Weymouth, Wrentham. My apologies, I'm screwing the first part of it up. >> I I have 67.57 yes and 5.84 no. >> Okay, so we move the question and we will go to a vote on Helen's
recommendation to send a letter to both the register and the county commissioners explaining that the advisory board would like them to go back into mediation for another round.
>> I'm ready. >> We do we have a mo- we have a motion and we have a second on that. All right, so you're ready? So Gus, you you're ready to go. >> Yep. Thank you. Avon. >> No. >> Bellingham. >> No. >> Braintree. >> No. >> Brookline.
>> No. >> Canton. >> No. >> Cohasset, Dedham. >> No. >> Dover. Foxborough. >> Yes. >> Franklin. >> No. >> Holbrook, Medfield. No.
Medway. Millis. Milton. >> No. >> Needham. >> No. >> Norfolk. >> No. >> Norwood. >> Yes. >> Plainville, Quincy. >> No. >> Randolph. >> No.
>> Sharon. >> No. >> Stoughton. >> No. >> Walpole. >> No. >> Wellesley, Westwood, Weymouth, Wrentham. >> I have 5.61 yes and 67.80
for no. >> Okay, so that motion fails. So, I will entertain a motion to approve a communication to each community's appointing authority reporting back and responding to the accusations made in the register's letter of 5 21 26.
Somebody want to make that motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We got a motion and a second. Discussion. >> Mr. Chairman >> Yes, go ahead, Mr. Padula. >> So, who is going to be sending the
letter? Who is the authority that's Is it going to be coming from the commissioners? Or is it going to be coming from the advisory board? >> I think I I mean I I believe that what what it sounds like this board wants is a joint um a joint communication. So, um if this passes, then I will um direct
the commissioner I'm sorry, the county director to work with the commissioners to draft something up that we can also add into. Does that sound reasonable? >> If it's it's going to be coming from both I have no problem with it coming from both of us, but I I wonder cuz there's been some comments about the
fact that people don't read the letters or don't get comment. I think they should have the letter that was presented along with the was our response so there's no confusion. >> I think you're talking about Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right, I follow you. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Uh
Gus, you can just >> please on the motion point of point of interest >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I got Gus, you have the floor. >> Yeah, Eric Eric, I just want to be real clear on what this motion is. You had said that this is the letter that will go to the appointing authorities.
Uh if I followed the discussion that we had if the commissioners want to add their signature to that letter or even if they wanted to draft that letter and we do we put our signature we have you maybe sign on behalf of the advisory
board. That's fine, but that's a separate issue from the commissioner's decision of how they might want to publicly respond to the the the communications that have come from O'Donnell. The point around us jointly working on that would be in that
public response going out to the public by the on behalf of the commissioners. We we would be willing These are my my thoughts and I part of what I thought was in the conversation. We might either join to help the commissioners get that letter to be as
good as possible and then sign on for it or we could issue a separate supplemental message that supports key points that are relevant to the advisory board. What I'm getting at is I don't think we ever talked about uh if it's a letter going to the appointing authority that it needed to have the or should
have the commissioners sign on to it as well. That might be a good idea, but that I think we mixed two scenarios there. >> Hm. Brain treat, can I make a comment? >> Go ahead, Charlie. >> Yeah, I I like like I said earlier if the letter went out from John Cronin and like on behalf of
the commissioners and the advisory board just wanted to you know answer some of the points that were brought up with the registrar's letter. I think it's best to come from the um from John Cronin. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Paul Kearney >> Paul Paul >> Uh I I think it should be a joint letter signed off by both Paul both boards. It should be signed off by the commissioners with John Cronin and should be signed off by the advisory board. And but we should review the
letter beforehand. So, for example, this document we got tonight a lot of people did not receive until the last minute. And uh we didn't see what some of the remarks were in there. Uh speaking for myself. Um so I think it should be a joint letter if we're doing it and I support sending
a joint letter signed by the commissioners and John Cronin and signed off by the advisory board as your as our representative. But we all should have a view of it before it goes out. >> Okay. Mr. Chair, if I could.
>> No, you are not Gus. Is that >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Are you on the same Is Gus on the same page? >> Gus, you're on the same page as that? >> My follow-up question be would that joint letter who did you think it should be sent to? >> I It would be sent to the I believe where our intention is to send it to the
appointing authority, not out to the general public. >> I don't think we should respond to the press. >> Do you think we should have responded to the press? >> not respond to the press. >> Did not. Okay. All right. So, you're okay with that, Gus? Helen? >> Question, please. Um
First of all, Mr. Randolph made a good point about uh not reading the letter before it gets sent out. That's a very good point. And the other good point is who How can we
uh everything in it is going to be once we sign it, it's going to be interpreted to be our opinions. How did How did you >> on everything we do as a advisory board. We vote on those budgets. We vote on
those items. >> I I still >> This meeting of government. >> I still support the current letter. I I you know, I'm I'm sorry. I I do agree with all of the comments that have been made. However, I think sending it out to the appointing authorities and I and I I
agree with the current letter. So, I just want to put that on the record. >> Mr. Chair, if I could. >> Yes. >> Uh when the motion was made to send this letter just recently by you and I seconded it, it was framed in a manner that reflected the draft that was sent
to us as written with you as the signatory. >> Correct. >> any discussion about adding in the commissioners or anything like that. Um from my perspective, I believe that the original intent to have this letter becoming from the advisory board to the appointing authorities is the most
appropriate path. And if we do decide to do something additional in the future, where we jointly respond with the commissioners more publicly or whatever that avenue is, we can discuss that at a later time. But I think uh for the purpose of this meeting and for the purpose of what was proposed and drafted
and that what was moved, I would support this letter coming from the advisory board and going to the appointing authorities. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you, sir. All right, so we have a motion and a second. >> Chairman. >> Mr. Palito. >> Yeah, I I agree with the letter going out to the uh
to the boards, not the newspaper. But, you know, I mean, it should be it you know, we we vote on recommendations from the from the uh commissioners. So, they should be a part of the letter because we're voting on their recommendations. They they they initially are the are the
lawsuits, not us. That's what I'm saying. So, it it should be from them also, not just us because they're the ones that initiated We we we ex- the majority of the board accepted their recommendations. So, really it's it's it's their issue more or less. We just accepted it. But, I
don't agree with everything in the letter. I I I wouldn't sign this letter. My name should I I don't want it because I don't agree with some of the responses you did. I think that uh that the facts aren't aren't all true. Thank you. >> Okay, um Jim from Walpole, are you there? >> I say something? Yeah, thank you.
>> Yep. >> Sorry, guys. I'm pretty quiet in this stuff because I don't >> Jim, you're breaking up. We can't we can't really hear you. >> Really? Breaking up. >> Jim, I'm I'm sorry. We can't understand
what you're saying. You're breaking up completely. >> with us with the county is pretty >> I had to come in person and vote. >> Jim. I'm I'm sorry, but we couldn't hear what you said. I'm going to move on to let's to Dr. Childs. >> I I just want to make sure that it's
that people understand um Mr. Palito, we are actually being sued. We are defendants. And um that is not um it is not only the commissioners who are being sued by the register. >> I I know that. I know that. >> Good. >> Okay.
So, we have a motion and a second to send out the letter um that has been proposed um signed by the chair to the appointing authorities. We have a a motion and a second. So, I'm going to call for a vote.
So, Mr. Mr. >> Point of order? >> Point of order. >> Yeah, we going to get the letter beforehand in case any changes made before we sign off on it completely. That's my Some of them want to see it again, but they didn't get to read it good. Should we get it again and and reply back that we agree with it?
As proposed. But some people said they didn't really read it. So, I just want to make sure what we're doing. That's all. >> We are I have read it. >> We are voting on the letter that you were provided. >> Yeah, but some people just got it today. I'm I'm just saying they didn't Some
didn't have a chance to read it, they said. So, I I just don't want to you know, they might Who didn't read it might want to make some changes to it. I don't know. That's just my comment. Okay. That's all. >> Can I make one more comment, please? >> Who is that, Charlie? >> Charlie, I'm going to be voting against
this cuz I think the letter should come from um the commissioners and the county director should be sending it out on behalf of the commissioners and the advisory board. So, I'm going to be voting against this motion. >> Okay, Charlie. Jim, do you want to try again? >> Yeah, we'll try again. Sorry. I >> Okay.
>> got pulled over. Uh I'm going to be voting against this, too. I just don't think it's productive to engage with this guy. He's been around [clears throat] a long time. He's been to these meetings. He's shown up to the county commissioners meetings. I don't I'm not appreciative of the way he conducts himself. Just these letters
aren't productive. But, I just don't think we should engage with them. So, that's my two cents, but thanks for all the effort there. >> Thank you, Jim. Helen? >> Question, please. Um in the pamphlet that was uh sent out to us, the signature is sincerely yours, Eric
Beckerman, chair, advisory board. I don't see the commissioners listed there. >> They're not. They're not. They're not. >> So, why are we talking about the commissioners? >> It's not listed there. Sorry, one moment, Helen.
>> Did anybody amend this letter to reflect that? >> That's what we're going over now. >> No, there's no specific amendment. The amendment is the motion has been to send out this letter. >> With the commissioners. No. >> No, it is not.
>> No. >> No, the letter the letter the motion right now is to send out the letter as is. >> I'm going to make a an amendment to the main motion that the letter come from the county director, John Cronin, and be from the advisory board and the county
commissioners. That's my motion that's to amend the main motion. >> Second the amendment. >> All right. So, we got a we got a we got a a motion and a second on an amendment to include to have the letter signed off by the county director
in support of both the commissioners and the advisory board. >> Might be better off muting Brenda Sweeney, too. >> [clears throat] >> So, we don't keep hearing those remarks. >> What did she say? >> Okay. So, um Phil, are you ready for that for to vote
on the amendment? >> Give me 1 second, please. >> [sighs] >> Amendment to add the commissioners? >> No, I mentioned it. >> Your amendment is to is to revise [clears throat] is to provide this
letter signed off by John Cronin and in support have the both the commissioners and the advisory board support. >> The letter goes out from John Cronin on behalf of the county commissioners and the advisory board. >> Correct. That's the amendment.
All right. So, Phil, when you're ready. >> Yeah, give me a minute, please. >> Point of clarification if I could, please. >> Yes. >> Is it going to have the the original letter that caused this letter to be produced it was going to have Bill's letter as well so they know what they're looking at so it's all in one place.
>> That's a very good point. >> I would I would assume I would assume yes. >> Okay. >> Because the cuz our letter actually does reference that letter I would expect that that would be sent as an addendum to the letter. >> Thank you. >> Liz? >> Uh I just wanted to ask a question of
the county director John Cronin if he sees any issue with this going out under his signature. >> County director? >> Sorry, I just stepped out to the restroom. I apologize. >> [laughter] >> What? I just Do you have a Do you have any Do
you see any issue with the letter going out under your signature uh with supported by the advisory board and and if the county commissioner >> On behalf of on behalf of the commissioners and advisory board. >> Yeah. >> I appreciate the question. This is not dodging a question Dr. Charles, but I'm
acutely aware who I vote who I work for. >> Yeah, exactly. >> My signature will be included if it is so intended by the New Hanover County Commissioners. So we would need to So if we make the motion and it passes, the commissioners have to make the final decision. >> Exactly. Thank you. Thank you very much.
That's very That clarifies that. Yes, thank you. >> Yes. >> Yeah, Eric with apologies if I'm just making your life miserable, but I want to point out that this motion is doing two things. One of the things is changing the process in terms of who
signs it. And that's that's that's fine as it stands and Mr. Cronin has clarified his ability to commit to doing anything in the absence of the commissioners telling him to. The second thing if I understood what you said correctly is the the letter that you sent out to everybody was identified
as a draft letter. But I think in this vote as it's being characterized at this point people are not only voting on the process change on who signs it and who who signs on, you know, on behalf of, but it's also saying this draft letter is the final letter
and we're accepting it. So I'm pointing out there can be two reasons why people wouldn't be on board with it. One of which is that this is a draft letter that we think still needs some work and people want to see the final letter before before agreeing to actually sending it. And the second one is who
actually signs it and how does it get routed? If that's the intent, that's great. It's just I I see that as a complicating factor getting a motion passed here. >> The spirit of my motion is that we see the letter before it goes out. >> That was Charlie, correct?
>> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. So we're making a decision on the course of action we want to take which is to finalize the letter build finalizing this draft letter to say what it is we would like it to say working
collaboratively presumably with the the the director and at least either formally or informally with the commissioners to make sure everybody's okay with what it says before it actually goes out. That's our course of action and that's a letter that's going to the appointing authorities.
>> Okay. That's correct. >> Okay. >> So um I guess my question that is is that I'm going to withdraw my my motion because we're going to have to revise that. So the motion would be I'm trying to think
how we would do this. Procedurally how would we do this? Should we reconvene >> on your main motion. I withdraw my amended amendment to the main motion. I'll make a motion that the letter be sent out by the county director on
behalf of the advisory board and the county commissioners and we see the letter before it goes out. So moved. >> May I Charlie, can I add a can I add a friendly question maybe change that as
if if approved by the commissioners because John can't sign anything unless the commissioners approve it. >> Well Well let me just say something about that. If John >> Can you add that somewhere? >> want to sign a letter then it's probably not the right thing to send out. So if John Cronin wants to
sign the letter, I have full faith in John Cronin it's going to be the right thing to send out. >> I agree but John's very clear the commissioners have to agree first. >> Right. >> Well if the commissioners don't want to send out a letter responding to the register on what he sent out, then what
business do we have sending something out if the commissioners don't want to send it out? >> I am I'm with you there Charlie. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Agreed. >> Yep. >> All right. So Charlie's motion is to generate a letter.
>> Point of order. >> Yes, go ahead, Harold. >> Thank you. Um I think that if our signature is going to be on it, that we should have the right to see the final letter before it goes out. >> Charlie said that. >> Yeah, he did say that. >> That's That's what it That's what
Charlie said. That's part of the motion. >> So, we'd have to have another vote to even if we had to mail in a vote approximately what? Have to have another vote to say, "Okay, we approve of the letter as submitted."
>> I have to have another vote. >> That is correct. So, what's the course of action that we want to take? Do we want to table this for now and reconvene in a week after a letter has been generated? I I'm not sure what the intent >> We're already here. We're already here.
We made a motion. I have a motion on the floor. I'm not >> And I second another motion, Charlie. >> All right. So, So, there's a motion and a second to generate a letter that is signed by the county director at the direction of the commissioners on behalf of the commissioners and the
advisory board and that the advisory board members are given an opportunity to review the letter and approve. >> Correct. >> Is that correct, Charlie? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm going to call a vote.
So, Phil, when you're ready. >> Hey. Okay, I'm ready. >> Avon. >> Yes. >> Bellingham. >> No. >> Braintree. >> I. >> Brookline. >> I. >> Canton.
>> Yes. >> Cohasset. Dedham. >> No. >> Dover. Foxborough. >> I'm opposed to advisory being on this. >> [clears throat] >> So, I vote no. >> Franklin >> Yes.
>> Holbrook, Medfield, yes. Medway Millis Milton >> Yes. >> Needham >> Needham left, I believe. >> Norfolk >> No. >> Norwood >> No. How how will we approve it
afterwards if it passes? >> Well, it's subject to subject to approval. So, that's part of the motion. >> Yes or no. They have to work on it. It's to be done. >> No. >> Okay. Uh Plainville, Quincy
>> Yes. >> Randolph >> Yes. >> Sharon >> Yes. >> Stoughton >> Yes. >> Walpole Walpole, let's be up to touch again. Uh Wellesley
Westwood Weymouth Wrentham >> How are we including Walpole as no vote? >> No vote. I didn't hear a vote. >> All right. So, I have 51.74 yes, 12.15 no. >> Okay. So, the motion passes. Then we
will I will ask the county director to draft a letter that we can work on. I would I would ask that you advise the commissioners that of this vote tonight. And that myself
um Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Murphy get the first chance of looking at the letter and then we will go from there as far as edits. And maybe it's better if we do edits in in groups. So, the executive committee looks at it first
and passes it on to four or five members then they pass it on to four or five members. This way we're not breaking any quorum or open meeting rules. Does that sound reasonable? >> It will work. >> It is a lot of work. I agree, Paul.
>> Point of order. I just think you get the letter from John Cronin and you give it to us and if we have to have a meeting, we do another painful meeting like this, we do it. Or else people could look at it and give comments back to John Cronin anything they have. But I have full
faith in John Cronin coming up with a good letter. >> I agree, Charlie. All right. So we are going to So we are So John, we're advising you to to revise the letter. That can be sent on behalf under your signatory. Um with the commissioners and the
advisory board on behalf of the commissioners and the advisory board. And we can talk We can talk more in the future about that. >> Eric, if I could just add one quick item. I know you're in a hurry to move this meeting along. Um but in the event that there's any kind of
dialogue amongst the board, um editing or giving feedback on the content of the letter, you must be mindful that that might be considered a violation of the open meeting law as the board is conducting business by doing so. >> Right. So I What I would do is I would
direct all members of the board that if you do have any questions or comments on the letter, you send them directly to the to the director, not copy any other members of this board. All right. And then the the county director can can take all of those
comments together and we can try to try to draft the letter that way. This way we are not in violation of open meeting law. >> Point of order. >> Yes. >> If if there's just a couple of members that are talking to each other, that's not illegal.
>> No, that's true. >> It can't be if you're already in a conversation or a serious conversation that puts you in harm's way. >> As long as it's not a quorum, then you are correct. More than one member can speak by themselves. What I'm saying is
that to protect ourselves from open meeting law, we're better off going directly to the to the um town administrator with our comments. If you want to get together with with two other people and you guys submit your comments together, be my guest. As
long as you're not breaking as long as you don't have a quorum, then you're okay. >> Raintree motion to adjourn. >> Is there a motion to adjourn? And a second. >> You've got to drive home. >> What's that? >> Do we need to vote to adjourn?
Phil, when you're ready. >> Okay. >> Andover. >> Avon. Hi. >> Bellingham. >> Hi. >> Braintree. >> Hi. >> Brookline. >> Hi. >> Canton. >> Yes. >> Carver. >> Hi.
>> Dover. Foxborough. >> Hi. >> Franklin. >> Yes. >> Holbrook. Medfield. Yes. Medway. Millis. Milton. >> Yes. >> Needham. >> Natick. >> Norfolk. >> Uh
Norwood. >> Yes. >> Plainville. Quincy. >> Yes. >> Randolph. >> Yes. >> Sharon. >> Yes. >> Stoughton. >> Yes. >> Walpole. Wellesley. Westwood. Weymouth. Wrentham.
Phil, I didn't hear votes for Walpole, Norwood, or Norfolk. >> Yeah. >> I I'm sorry. No. Need Sorry. Walpole, Needham, and Norfolk. Sorry. Sorry, Helm. >> It's unanimous anyway. >> Okay. Thank you all for your time tonight. I appreciate it. We will We will double
back and we'll talk to you all soon. >> Eric, thanks for your efforts. >> Thank you very